Escape to the Movies: You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

After his review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9126-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-The-Movie-That-Broke-MovieBob], MovieBob takes a look at 2007's supposedly bad Spider-Man 3, directed by Sam Raimi.

Watch Video
 

spartenX

New member
Oct 2, 2009
107
0
0
you know Bob, all this talk about spidey has gotten me curious, have you seen the spectacular spiderman cartoon greg weisman did a few years back, and if so what did you think of it?
 

ayvee

New member
Jan 29, 2010
107
0
0
I always rather liked Spider-Man 3, so this is refreshing to see.

This thread is going to get messy, though...
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Ehhh...

I still think the movie is pretty bad overall. A lot of the individual pieces work (I've always love douchey Peter and his stupid dances for the same reason Bob does), but that doesn't save the movie. The pacing is still awful, the villains fade in and out of the story at random as it tries to juggle everything, and the MJ/Peter relationship felt like a retread of the first two movies.

It's not an abomination of cinema, but it's not worth praise as a whole. I think Bob's seeing it with rose-coloured glasses.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Spider-Man 3 was amazing. I mean, if you're going to be ridiculous and stupid, go ALL IN. And that movie did.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
its sure is not the best of the trilogy but still enjoyable in its own way. but yes, his over cool behavior was retarded and out of place as well. otherwise, yeah, it was still OK.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.

Look fine you like the Evil Dead series but Sam Raimi is not some god like director incapable of doing wrong at best his average.

Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.

The Peter Parker from the Amazing Spiderman films is far closer to what people are familiar with from both the 90's and onwards cartoons were lets face it most people had seen Spiderman before the 2002 film and the comics since the 80's.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Oh this will get some vitriol. I'd have to go back and watch Spiderman 3, I can't remember all that much of it. Still I've never wanted to be mad at this film anyway, especially since 1 and 2 were good.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking like someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
 

Ashoten

New member
Aug 29, 2010
251
0
0
Cognitive dissonance Bob. You know all about that so I am surprised at you for your ongoing crusade against this new spider man. Pick on Green Lantern some more that movie was genuinely bad and hateful and a mishandling of intellectual property.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
I agree. This movie isn't as bad as people say it is. That being said, I still think it's pretty bad. Way too many villains who were really uninteresting. Franco was the only decent thing in the movie IMO. Also, I found Maguire's acting to be pretty bad whenever he had to do something emotional.

I still don't get how you hated TDKR so much that you harp on it every chance you get though... Different strokes for different folks I guess.
 

mada7

New member
May 14, 2009
60
0
0
I find that an interesting take on spiderman 3. That said with regards to the finger guns and the rest of that awful jazz club scene deliberately awful is still awful. I didn't really notice venom much in that movie what bothered me more was sandman. This might be what happens in the comics but the generic science pit he falls into to get his powers would've done nothing but swirl sand around if he wasn't in it. The scientists abandoning any concept of a controlled experiment for the sake of getting off work quicker is ridiculous. My other final complaint about the movie is that dumb breakup scene in the park where Harry sits way off in the distance and just trusts Mary Jane not to say something like "Harry is threatening to do X if I don't break up with you. He's sitting off in the distance watching so after this conversation pretend I broke up with you then go beat the shit out of him later" as opposed to actually doing what he wants.

I'd watch dark knight rises 100 times before I rewatch this. That movie was good aside from the weird everyone fires one round of bullets then run at each other and start punching scene
 

Ashoten

New member
Aug 29, 2010
251
0
0
Zhukov said:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
Your right. Bob is trying to retcon history here. No one ever took the Ramey spider man movies seriously. They were still goofy and entertaining now as they were at release.
 

Zenron

The Laughing Shadow
May 11, 2010
298
0
0
"The prospect of Felicity jones dressed up as the black cat will not help... much" Lies. Lies and slander.

I agree about pretty much everything you say in this video. While ASM 2 does have some things that work, they aren't as interesting or risky as any of the things that work in Spider-man 3.

I love the emo peter parker bits, for the same reason you did. I rewatched the film after reading Devin Faraci's piece on it years ago and it totally changed my mind. I love how when he's dancing down the street all the women look at him like he's a weirdo, because of course, he is. Just great.
 

Symion

New member
Aug 30, 2012
16
0
0
Looks like Bob has re-joined the Movie Defense Force.

Welcome back to the fold.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.

Look fine you like the Evil Dead series but Sam Raimi is not some god like director incapable of doing wrong at best his average.

Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.

The Peter Parker from the Amazing Spiderman films is far closer to what people are familiar with from both the 90's and onwards cartoons were lets face it most people had seen Spiderman before the 2002 film and the comics since the 80's.
Yes but he didn't stop being a wuss untill he grew up. Marrying MJ, Getting out of College, Gwen's death. It was those things that shook him out of his dweeby highschool funk.

Those things hadn't happened in the movie universe yet.
 

V TheSystem V

New member
Sep 11, 2009
996
0
0
I remember seeing this on my 14th birthday and thinking it was the best of the three. Got it on DVD the following Christmas, and did not like it as much as I had originally thought. Maybe because I wasn't with my friends laughing about bits of it as I had been in the cinema? I dunno.

Peter Parker dancing down the street is very hard to watch with a straight face, it's embarrassing. Venom was underused and shouldn't have been used unless Raimi was dedicated to focusing on him and him alone (my opinion). Sandman was great, but I was pretty damn annoyed at the retconning of Uncle Ben's death. It made Peter's first act as Spider-Man (apprehending his uncle's killer) completely pointless. Yes, the guy was responsible, but not the actual killer, so placing Sandman as the killer completely negates that scene from the first Spider-Man.

The birth of Sandman scene was amazing, though.
 

ellers07

New member
Feb 24, 2013
158
0
0
As much as I love Sam Raimi, I was never a big fan of his Spiderman movies. I actually thought one of the weakest parts was the casting. Tobey Macguire just never felt like Peter Parker or Spiderman to me. I actually prefer Andrew Garfield. He has the banter and wit that seemed to be lacking from the Raimi trilogy. Then again, I group with the Spiderman cartoon of the 90s, and only read a few Spiderman comics here and there, so maybe my view is distorted.
 

jFr[e]ak93

New member
Apr 9, 2010
369
0
0
I agree with his take on the first two.... 3rd.... ahhhh not as much.

That was the best defense of that dance scene I could imagine though. I think he may have redeemed that part for me.

That part.

I'd really like to see him review the first two now.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,860
833
118
Holy fucking shit, that new Spider-Man movie must be the worst damn thing in the world if it has you remembering Spider-Man 3 in any positive way.

I love the first two Spidey movies, but the third is terrible in every way no matter what angle you try to view it from.
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
0
0
It's nice to see a different take on Spider-Man 3, even if I don't entirely agree with it. However, on most points I am totally with you. Peter Parker, or at least this incarnation of him, is a massive dork. It made perfect sense that he would be trying way too hard to be cool and I liked everything right up to the Jazz sequence.

For me there are three unforgivable flaws this film committed which allow it to earn it's reviled status.

1. The Mary Jane dumps Peter to save him. This was tired cliche by the time this occurred and it is handled so poorly. Peter weeping like a crushed child doesn't help either. Seriously, Peter is Spider-Man, why doesn't she just tell him, "Hey, our mutually crazy friend is trying mess with us, go punch him the face." or "Hey, I don't really mean it, Harry is just making me say this, sorry to make you weep like an 6 year old with a skinned knee."

2. Uncle Ben was really killed by Sandman, but it was totally an accident. This IS as bad as Batman's secret Joker origin. Worse even, because the original scene was perfectly handled, and this goes back and retroactively ruins it. Even worse yet, this is completely unnecessary. Just have the Sandman show up at a robbery and hurt one of Peter's friends. Boom: motivation.

3.The entire 3rd act. Seriously, it's terrible. The film by this point just goes by the motions, ticking off everything that happened in Spider-Man2, just done worse. Mary Jane get's kidnapped. Goblin Jr. learns he has the world's worst butler, that his dad was really the jerk, and he get's a last minute change of heart. However, the worst part about is, that the film resolves nothing about the Peter and Mary Jane relationship.

Like I said before, I appreciate a defense of this film, especially with all the dull-witted attacks that get dumped on it. Not everyone who dislikes this film is an idiot, but a majority of them really can't be bothered to say anything more than make a gay or emo Peter joke. However, despite it being a disappointment I will take watching this over Amazing Spiderman any day of the week. S3 is failure that could of been prevented had Raimi insisted on a rewrite and was able to fend off studio interference. Amazing Spiderman is a cynical cash grab made just to keep the license going.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Ashoten said:
Zhukov said:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
Your right. Bob is trying to retcon history here. No one ever took the Ramey spider man movies seriously. They were still goofy and entertaining now as they were at release.
Wait, you're saying that a guy who was bitten by a spider and then started wearing spandex while fighting crime is supposed to be taken seriously? Someone should have told that to Lee and Kirby.
 

luckycharms8282

New member
Mar 28, 2009
540
0
0
Yes, yes, yes. I agree with everything you've said in this review, Bob. Tobey Maguire is and always will be Spiderman to me. New Spiderman looks too much like pre-teen twilight.

The subway scene in Spiderman 2 is still one of the best moments in all of the superhero movies that have come out in the 2000s.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Agreed on all points. That's the problem - Spider-man 3 is literally 3 movies crammed into one. Thomas hayden and the sandman story AMAZING. So good. You could actually cut out most of the movie and have a good short film about Sandman. The Goblin storyline if it was fleshed out was a great movie on it's own. Unfortunately I have to agree with Bob for informational and nostalgia purposes I went back and reread or wiki'd the whole venom backstory and maximum carnage nonsense. It's all garbage it really is. Venom as a concept is neat but no writer to this date has been able to add any depth to venom or eddie brock. YOu will never see a section of marvel knights or selfcontained Graphic novel about venom. There's just nothing to say.
 

vid87

New member
May 17, 2010
737
0
0
I get why people were disappointed with it - I was too for the most part, especially when it ended up being the "last one" for this creative team and universe - but I'm starting to hate how people dismiss this outright when the good things, though few, stand out as magnificent. Mainly, why does everyone forget the Sandman origin scene? He's a goofy gimmicky roster-filler from conception, but put him on screen in the right way and he becomes moving and beautiful. That's a miracle as far as I'm concerned.

Also, is it me or between Bob and Jim we as a society are starting to re-evaluate our fanboy rage and give what we thought were "bad" movies leniency. Hell, with Bob Hoskins passing, I found myself asking why people never mentioned Super Mario in his filmography when, in retrospect, he was one of the best things about it.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
I guess I accidentally clicked on the Movie Defense Force of this week...

And no, MovieBob. I get that your wound after seeing ASM2 is fresh, but that is no excuse to jump to the defense of Spiderman 3.

That movie is awful... really awful. The way they handled the new goblin is a mess, the way they retconned uncle Ben's death 3 times during the movie is a mess, the whole "can't decide if Peter is awful or cool being bad" is a mess, the way they made Mary Jane extra bitchy is a mess, the ending is a mess. The entire movie is such a mess its comparable with Schumacher's Batman movies in the pantheon of sequels so awful they almost singlehandedly burned a successful franchise to the ground.

This is not about a movie not being campy, this is about a movie that can't decide whether it wants to be campy or it wants to be dark and gloomy, and looking schizophrenic as a result...
 

RandV80

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,507
0
0
I haven't seen them but I get the impression that the new Amazing Spiderman movie series is corporate packaged specifically targeting today's ADD-orientated youthful audience. Probably why it irritates Movie Bob so much... myself included though since I'm not a movie critic I don't have to see them.
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
The defense of "Emo Peter" is pretty much the exact defense I've been giving since I first saw it.
Yes it's stupid, yes it's hard to watch but it makes sense within the frame of reference for the Peter Parker character and I'll give it a pass. I'd still have preferred Venom to have been left out of the film entirely, but oh well.

I didn't hate all of Spider-Man 3 and everything I did dislike about it comes down to cramming too much into the allotted screen time. The Sandman plot should have been given much more development, same for the Harry Osborn storyline.

One of the things that I loved about the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films was that they kept the central "with great power..." theme through the entire film series. Spider-Man's villain roster is frequently full of street level dudes who suddenly find themselves with powers and then proceed to fail spectacularly in delivering on the "great responsibility."

The Amazing Spider-Man series, on top of failing to provide a tolerable Peter Parker continues to fail at this as well. Yes they came close with the Electro story in AMS2 but given how disjointed his plot is, it's hard to chalk that up as a win.
 

Burnouts3s3

New member
Jan 20, 2012
746
0
0
You know, I've heard the "Peter Parker is not cool" argument before. A lot of fans contest that when John Romita replaced Steve Ditko, that Peter became more social able and was not the nerd Ditko drew him to be, at least not anymore.

So, the question remains is how anyone can say Peter is simply 'one thing' when Spider-man has been going on for so long that different artists/writers/editors, etc. make out to be something different each time. I will contest that Spider-man's origin, i.e. being the indirect force that gets Uncle Ben killed always works because it's a self contained morality lesson that was very in-sync with Ditko's Objectivist viewpoints (i.e. Evil happens because we allow it to happen and will eventually punish your selfishness).
 

punipunipyo

New member
Jan 20, 2011
486
0
0
so... you are... reviewing spidy 3? ok... fair enough... I didn't like Garfield as peter too... I think Tobe is better Peter... this new hipster-parker is lame... However, Garfield-spidy is REALLY GOOD! I like the punk-cocky-joker/dissor that he is that ONE SCENE battle in school in Amazing 1, almost remind me of the animation of the 90s! given... the final fight is crap... just angry spidy throwing Super fit... I think what I am trying to say is... Tobe is great Peter Parker, Garfield is Great spidy...and I think SONY REALLY NEED TO be respecting the source material... and really care for their villains... 50% more like the first trilogy
 

Dandres

New member
Apr 7, 2013
118
0
0
Called it, and in 20 years we will be talking about how the ASM's are better than what has come out in the next bunch of Spider reboots. Nostalgia raises the appraisal value of everything.
 

Korastus

New member
Dec 4, 2013
8
0
0
None of this is surprising. I can count the times I've agreed with ANYTHING MovieBob says on one hand. Spider-Man 3 was garbage.
 

Suhi89

New member
Oct 9, 2013
109
0
0
hermes200 said:
I guess I accidentally clicked on the Movie Defense Force of this week...

And no, MovieBob. I get that your wound after seeing ASM2 is fresh, but that is no excuse to jump to the defense of Spiderman 3.

That movie is awful... really awful. The way they handled the new goblin is a mess, the way they retconned uncle Ben's death 3 times during the movie is a mess, the whole "can't decide if Peter is awful or cool being bad" is a mess, the way they made Mary Jane extra bitchy is a mess, the ending is a mess. The entire movie is such a mess its comparable with Schumacher's Batman movies in the pantheon of sequels so awful they almost singlehandedly burned a successful franchise to the ground.

This is not about a movie not being campy, this is about a movie that can't decide whether it wants to be campy or it wants to be dark and gloomy, and looking schizophrenic as a result...
I completely agree with this. I was never a particular fan of either of the first 2 Spiderman movies but I hated Spiderman 3. I hated the romance(s), I hated the many many villains (there were, what, 4?) and I hated everything about MJ. Seriously she came across as so needy and pathetic. The totally ridiculous emo scene was the highlight for me because it was the only part of the film that I didn't find mind-crushingly boring. I payed money to see this at the cinema and it probably shares joint worst cinema going experience for me with Pirates 3.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
The thing about this video and the discussion therein isn't that we weren't wrong about Spider-Man 3. It's the same reason why people hated The Godfather part 3: a movie that was preceded by two excellent movies- against the hope brought on by the good reputation it had running for it -disappointed us, immensely.

Bob listed all the reasons why 3 sucked, and gave a somewhat interesting viewpoint on those scenes. Thing is, he's listing out exactly why people hate it for what it is. It just so happens that Bob found these flaws less dealbreakers than well... everyone else did.

I'd gladly watch 3 again for its music, its cinematography, and its utter lack of trying to make the protagonist stuttering at his potential love interest look like flirting.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,159
1
3
Country
UK
Wait you thought that was better than the Dark Knight Rises? I thought you liked that or at least think it was ok?

Also danm, I thought the stinger at the end was going to be Bob opinion on the latest Godzilla trailer.
 

Sejborg

New member
Jun 7, 2010
85
0
0
Picking Spider-Man 3 over Godfather 3 and The Dark Knight Rises. You just keep surprising me with your reviews Bob. :) Sooo incohesive.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.

The Peter Parker from the Amazing Spiderman films is far closer to what people are familiar with from both the 90's and onwards cartoons were lets face it most people had seen Spiderman before the 2002 film and the comics since the 80's.
^This.

Peter is still the science geek we all know Peter Parker to be, it's just that he isn't the typical "I am Nerdy and can't defend myself geek" like Toby Maguire portrayed.

Andrew Garfield has so much more character than Toby's did. I really think he does an excellent job. It's just the writing and script isn't the best. Which i hope(even though i doubt they will) Sony greatly improves on in the 3rd film.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Have you seen Happy Days? Imagine acting like Fonzi? You would look really dumb because that version of cool isnt what "cool" is today. I guess thats what they were going for in the movie. Personally i think the ASM2 will be a fun watch, same as i enjoyed ASM1 though its not as good as the first two raimi movies. But then im not a die hard Sidey fan. I liked Spidey 3 to a point, just lots of mess in it. From a crappy small venom, stupid flying hover board goblin and the recon death to name three. I lay most of this at the hands of suits meddling in things they no nothing about.

Venom should have been in number 4, that way there was no need to force Raimi to do it.
Why a hover board? I think if he used the same green goblin costume/board as his dad then they would work better, for starters it would have more effect being that peter thought he was dead.
I liked Sandman, but why connect him to Peter? He had his own reason to get money to save his daughter, why make it more personal by having him kill the uncle? So stupid.

Its a shame, but 3rd movies always seem to fail.
 

deathbydeath

New member
Jun 28, 2010
1,363
0
0
Not going to lie, when I saw the jazz club scene again I had flashbacks to the Fatboy Slim Weapon of Choice video:
[youtube]XQ7z57qrZU8[/youtube]
Where's Christopher Walken when you need him?
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Holy fucking shit, that new Spider-Man movie must be the worst damn thing in the world if it has you remembering Spider-Man 3 in any positive way.

I love the first two Spidey movies, but the third is terrible in every way no matter what angle you try to view it from.
ASM 2 really isn't all that bad, Perfect? Hell no. Spiderman 1 and 2 still win in the Spiderman films department. But ASM 2 is by no means awful, In fact, it shows that Sony now has it's footing with ASM as a movie series, if this was the first film, it would have set the standard, the fact it's a sequel really doesn't help it at all. I really hope they do something great with the sequels. They really need to raise the bar.

Again, Not perfect, but my no means are these films un-watchable as Bob seems to think.
 

Seracen

New member
Sep 20, 2009
645
0
0
ayvee said:
I always rather liked Spider-Man 3, so this is refreshing to see.

This thread is going to get messy, though...
Agreed. I never really had a problem with Spiderman 3. There were a lot of flaws, and one could tell it was the first draft of a screenplay. A few edits and reshoots could have saved the film (ie: dat EMO scene, amusing, but unfortunate). However, there was nothing in it that spoke "reboot" to me. They could have simply continued on from there, recasting as necessary.

But then all the marketing gimmicks would have been harder to place, I suppose. I still think the Fox Universe could benefit from the inclusion of Spiderman, and vice versa. It's sort of hard to be excited for so many spinoffs without being concerned about bloat. At least the Marvel Studios films have several different characters to carry the various plot threads.

It's a lot easier to juggle a wider universe when you have several different movies, with different plots and motivations, that only have to loosely tie into the main overlying plot (ie the Avengers separately don't HAVE to be bogged down by the plot of Avengers 2).

EDIT: I actually LIKED Jack Nicholson's Joker killing the Waynes. In fact, I liked the take on Batman, even if it wasn't true to the source material (though Gotham was). I see Micheal Keaton's Batman as a younger version of Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns."
 

The Great JT

New member
Oct 6, 2008
3,721
0
0
I liked Spider-Man 3. Mostly because of Sandman (I didn't mind that he was the guy who killed Uncle Ben, weird though that may seem), granted, but it's certainly becoming a better movie in my eyes retrospectively due to how awful the ASM flicks are.
 

SnakeoilSage

New member
Sep 20, 2011
1,211
0
0
I think I can look back on Spider Man 3 with a little more sympathy. No, that isn't enough to make me go back and watch it.
 

Carbo

New member
Dec 17, 2010
61
0
0
Scarim Coral said:
Wait you thought that was better than the Dark Knight Rises? I thought you liked that or at least think it was ok?

Also danm, I thought the stinger at the end was going to be Bob opinion on the latest Godzilla trailer.
His stance on TDKR was always "good, not great". It really felt like the kind of movie that had even more glaring flaws the more you thought about it. CinemaSins and RedLetterMedia already skewered it pretty well.

It's an interesting defense on Spider-Man 3, Bob. I can actually agree with a lot of it. I feel it's a scenario very much shared with The Phantom Menace which you similarly reviewed a while back. Sure, the movies aren't particularly good but the circumstances for it's time really made the movie's flaws seem far more glaring in a public light than it ended up becoming, and in a way it overshadows some of the dues it pays off. Hell even Nostalgia Critic defended this movie years ago.

The video could have afforded not to have the clickbait title though. People will probably get really hung up on that.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
I always knew to stay away from the ASM series after finding out they were written by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the dynamic duo responsible for the writing of the Transformers trilogy.
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
Looking back on them now, I think the whole serious of Rami films are flawed, the second being the only one I would call decent, personally. 3 is downright bad, a cluster of nonsensical scenes and character motivations and of course utterly failing at doing anything interesting or respectful with the Black Suit.

And despite Bob's own opinion on the Amazing series (again, OPINION, a word Bob does not seem to know sometimes... mostly this time), that does not retroactively make something good again, a bad film is bad.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
At this point, Bob is just trying too hard.

The first two Spider-Man films were pretty good, I'll grant. I'll never like the casting that much (Maguire made for a good Peter Parker but a bad Spider-Man, Dunst was just plain wrong for the part, Franco is... Franco, and while Bob is right in that they may never try to replace JK Simmons, a few good casting decisions don't make up for all the bad ones), the films are campy (no, that's not honest, heartfelt emotion. I've got no problem with emotion. Raimi breaks into camp at the drop of a hat because it's Raimi, and Bob might find that over-acted, over-played scenes make for emotive impact, I find them... well... over-acted and over-played), and I find Raimi's bizarre need to make all of his villains tragic heroes (seriously; he basically sets it up so that almost none of them are responsible for their own actions, choosing instead to make them victims and missing the entire point of many of Spider-Man's nemeses: that these are people who obtained powers by accident and then made the choice to ignore the whole "with great power" bit), but the first two films do stand on their own as decent pieces of filmmaking.

The third film is a turd, well past the point of polishing. It's terrible, it killed the original series, got Raimi kicked out of the director's chair, and wound up with Sony scrambling to find some way of salvaging that mess before the film rights reverted to Marvel.
 

GamemasterAnthony

New member
Dec 5, 2010
1,009
0
0
Seconding the comment on J.K. Simmons as J.J. Jameson. I swear...every time I see JJ in those films, I keep thinking Stan Lee really can break the fourth wall and enter the Marvel universe because it's like they got the REAL JJ to play himself! Hell...that portrayal of JJ inspired me to make a "Top Ten Live Action Portrayals of Established Characters" list on another message board. (Which...I haven't completed yet...)
 

lord canti

New member
May 30, 2009
619
0
0
Spider-man 3 was horrible for multiple reason,tone being one of them. All the trailers and poster you see had Peter looking miserable and looking like they had put him through the wringer. The movie comes out and what do we get? peter acting like a complete goof. Also while it is debatable that Toby was a good Peter Parker, He was a lousy Spider-man
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
MovieBob said:
You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

After his review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/9126-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-The-Movie-That-Broke-MovieBob], MovieBob takes a look at 2007's supposedly bad Spider-Man 3, directed by Sam Raimi.

Watch Video
ok bob I think toby is the better peter(though the dance scene is wrong on so many levels) but Garfield is the better Spiderman. Now first and foremost the biggest issue I have with all of ramis spiderman movies is it portrayed peter as an unintelligent person who though smart couldn't get grades in collage due to being late all the time. That one I know and love runs a science program at EU for underprivileged students and actually does great in school.

as for how peter with the venom suit should act see the 1994 cartoon were he puts on a business suit and looks like a professional.
Also the fact that ramis spidy didn't have web shooters kinda pissed me off.
 

Swarmcrow

New member
Dec 11, 2008
40
0
0
venom is freaking awesome

venom is one of spiderman best villain, becouse he leaves peter parker in a state of paranoiac Helplessness, he basically already has Peter Parker in checkmate position and he is just cat playing with his food .. he doesn't just know peter Parker is spiderman ..he know everything there is to know about peter Parker, what he likes to eat, when he goes to the bathroom
what are his credit cards numbers , where he hides his porn, who is the people near to him, what are his fears and flaws .. worst than that. venom can shape into anyone and pretend he is them and because he doesn't trigger the spider sense peter Parker as spider man is also helpless, he is stronger , he is faster and more resistant

Venom is Peter Parker is worst nightmare and thats why he is cool

the problems is that writers just don't seem to understand the character or know what they want to do with him , you can clearly see this when they come up with awesome ideas like making Eddie Brock Anti- venom .. a character whos power is to cure people and sees venom as personal demon that he want to get away from ... a guy that by all sense an logic should be in a hospital curing kids from cancer ... what does marvel do with him ... tell the same old "venom lethal protector" stories that had been told a hundred times already .. because marvel was just looking for a way of selling venom as an anti-hero and villain at the same time
 

MowDownJoe

New member
Apr 8, 2009
464
0
0
Honestly, I liked MOST of Spider-Man 3. Everything through Peter ditching the Symbiote Suit was enjoyable. It's just everything after that was just... urgh. And yet, I remember going to a pre-release for whatever the new Magic set was at the time, and heard people saying the entire film was awful. Now, I'm not going to deny the silly Harry & Spidey vs. Sandman and Vemon thing wasn't stupid. It was. But there was plenty of good movie in there.
 

Carbo

New member
Dec 17, 2010
61
0
0
Raesvelg said:
The third film is a turd, well past the point of polishing. It's terrible, it killed the original series, got Raimi kicked out of the director's chair, and wound up with Sony scrambling to find some way of salvaging that mess before the film rights reverted to Marvel.
I hope you realize the only reason Spider-Man 4 got cancelled is because Raimi willingly withdrew from the project due to him not considering it possible to finish the movie when Sony wanted it done, and he hated every iteration of the script that the creative team was shitting out for him.

Being a turd isn't stopping Sony's extended plans to continue the TASM series, even after TASM2's cripplingly mediocre reception. Spider-Man 3 was still the movie that made Sony the most money out of any Spider-Man movie, and the only reason that series died is because Sony were terrible at handling a plan B.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
Bob we get hat you don't like this new strange and scary spider-man but you didn't have to go and felate the dead carcass of the previous series. I mean seriously you're defending spider-man 3? 3? I think maybe you need to step back and look at yourself before continuing on.
 

Joey Banana

New member
Apr 27, 2014
14
0
0
Haven't seen the latest Spidey flick yet but from what i remember, all four movies were solid entertainment. The first two Raimi movies could be objectively called good movies (my standard for "great" is a lot higher, though), i guess. Each film had their flaws (some more than others) but in the end, there isn't all that much to hate or love about.

Whatever, you kids have fun arguing, i'm just sitting here rewatching The Spectacular Spiderman yet again only to cry myself to sleep afterwards over the injustice of its cancellation.

(Not to forget, both live action franchises are still better than the current "Spiderpool" cartoon)
 

shadowmagus

New member
Feb 2, 2011
435
0
0
Not sure I agree Bob. I'm sorry you felt ASM2 was a mess (and I agree with you on that point), but Spider-man 3 isn't better because of it, it just mean there are now more bad movies in the Spider-man movie group then good ones now. I know, hard to swallow but it's just joining the likes of Superman and X-Men.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
I actually genuinely enjoyed spider man 3. I enjoyed the symbiote thing though I wish they would have either made it front and center and venom just basically be an insane deadpool esqe type like he is in the PS1 spiderman game, or just stood on sandman because he's probably enough to carry most of the movie with a little help. I honestly laughed almost to tears when peter started doing the jazz club/hipster cool walk thing because it was rediculous and so far away from regular peter parker it felt like a parody of it and that's what made the scene great. I gave a headshake after overhearing someone say he should ahve kept the black suit because black suits are cool and he was stronger he just needed to be less of a dick and wnated to shout that's the entire point of the black suit. SO I've never had the problem with it the internet seems to.

I'd say of the 3 Riemi's its the weakest but its far stronger than either of the two new ones are (im sure, I havent seen the second on yet but i'm not liking what i hear from people who have that aren't moviebob so there's a little less bias). I wouldn't ever say its a bad movie, on a scale of 1-10 its probably around a 6.8 to me at least.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Whatever anyone does say about it, the main problem still stands. It tries to do too much all at once... failing at it the whole time. Having three villains in one movie is just unfocused. A great movie should tell a story. This tries telling three at once and is barely coherent at best.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
I didn't realize Venom was even a character in Spider-Man 3.
It was just something that exaggerated traits, like alcohol or a canvas for shadow plays.
It's a blank slate, a modifier, not a character. It exaggerates Peters attempts to be cool by making him a douche, and it exaggerates that guys hate and revenge fantasies into a monster, that's it.

I don't think it's even referred to as Venom in the movie!
 

Gerardo Vazquez

New member
Sep 28, 2013
65
0
0
Zhukov said:
someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
And this surprises/disappoints you? Do you even read Spider-man? 0_0
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Sorry but no. No way. Just no freakin' way. The first two of those spidey flicks were good, very solid, especially the casting. But 3? 3 was awful! The only good thing in 3 was Sandman. His story, his character arc, his look and they way he was played were all fantastic. But not another single thing about that movie was redeemable. It was either aping what had already been done well in the first two, or else doing something new to terrible effect.
 

nightazday

New member
Apr 5, 2009
43
0
0
Venom only had screentime in the third act and I agree that Peter was suppose to be like that because "blacksuit spidey = Peter on roids" but I still think you are giving sandman too much credit.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
mada7 said:
I'd watch dark knight rises 100 times before I rewatch this. That movie was good aside from the weird everyone fires one round of bullets then run at each other and start punching scene
Given the location(Manhattan island) and the length of time without resupply in the form of ammo, it is unlikely that anyone would have had more than one or two mags on hand during the final scene. So that was actually 'somewhat' realistic.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
I haven't seen the new spiderman films, super hero movies have played themselves into a bit of a loop.
1- Hero gets power, fights doods
2- Hero hates power/power becomes a issue health or otherwise and it either fades or hurts them.
3- Weird spin that divides viewers.

Spiderman 3 only had one good thing going for it, Sandman, he was amazing. Just like Doc Oc, perfectly cast and well done overall.
 

Gerardo Vazquez

New member
Sep 28, 2013
65
0
0
Sejborg said:
Picking Spider-Man 3 over Godfather 3 and The Dark Knight Rises. You just keep surprising me with your reviews Bob. :) Sooo incohesive.
Ah yes. The Batman movie where Batman is on screen for roughly 30 minutes.
 

Trucken

New member
Jan 26, 2009
707
0
0
You know, I never thought Spiderman 3 was bad. It was the worst of the three, sure, but it still wasn't bad. Not saying that it was a piece of art, but a well above-average movie.
 

jdarksun

New member
Nov 3, 2003
87
0
0
Venom boring? Bob, you didn't read Remender's run, did you? Go check out Venom Vol 2, Flash Thompson as Agent Venom is a really, really good book.

Maguire is a great Spider-Man, but his Peter Parker is just slouching through his scenes. You call that "acting the part", but Peter Parker hasn't been a dweeb in over a decade. Nerds are cool now, remember? Regardless, Maguire and Dunst have zero chemistry, and MJ only exists as the worst kind of girl-in-peril.

...yeah, Topher Grace is fantastic. Can't argue there.

You're defending Spider-Man 3 not on its own merits, but by comparing to movies you hate and saying "See? It's not THAT bad!" But it is. Spider-Man 3, as you yourself said, suffers from the studio and director not being on the same page. It's commercialism, not art.

In closing, Everything Wrong With Spider-Man 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrDwtLl1p0A
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.

Look fine you like the Evil Dead series but Sam Raimi is not some god like director incapable of doing wrong at best his average.

Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.

The Peter Parker from the Amazing Spiderman films is far closer to what people are familiar with from both the 90's and onwards cartoons were lets face it most people had seen Spiderman before the 2002 film and the comics since the 80's.
Well that's wrong. Peter isn't a wuss yeah, but he was still a hard luck hero, the new ones have really pushed that out of the window, 90s Spidey was still inept in some ways.


Andrew Siribohdi said:
You know, I've heard the "Peter Parker is not cool" argument before. A lot of fans contest that when John Romita replaced Steve Ditko, that Peter became more social able and was not the nerd Ditko drew him to be, at least not anymore.

So, the question remains is how anyone can say Peter is simply 'one thing' when Spider-man has been going on for so long that different artists/writers/editors, etc. make out to be something different each time.
You're forgetting Spidey was written almost as an aging character he went from School to college to work, had he not been bitten by the Spider to gain that extra confidence he'd have remained the same.
However the thing every writer before OMD still showed his social ineptitude, that he has the worst luck due to unforeseen events and he was still a nerd in the 90s when he was married as MJ said it quite often.


I think the film WAS bad but had great moments, I like the Harry and Peter fight (you heard cheers by the end), some of Sandman's scenes are great, the Bell tower scene was cool. I just wish the sum of it's parts could make a good whole.

I'll say Raimi's films "gets" Spider-man more than the current stuff.
 

Zombie Badger

New member
Dec 4, 2007
784
0
0
I didn't find the first two Raimi films to be amazing as kid (though I liked them) but like you I just found the third to be just kind of okay myself, which I think was why it was a letdown. It wasn't something that you could just rage about the soul-shattering, cannabalism-inducing horror of it all, it was just forgettable. I disagree about Emo Peter though. It didn't make dislike him so much as the film for just annoying me and I think that if they wanted me to hope he gets rid of it it would have been more effective to have him be genuinely unpleasant at times but once the symbiote-rush fades away horrified at his own actions. I think they attempted this at the end of the nightclub scene but it was such a tonal whiplash that it just didn't work.
 

MPerce

New member
May 29, 2011
434
0
0
Hurray, someone else on the Internet doesn't think Spidey 3 is an abomination!

It's not any good, but it doesn't deserve the vitriol the Internet usually reserves for the Star Wars prequels. To me, it's always been a prime example of a promising movie wrecked by studio politics.
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
The Jazz scene was to long? BLASPHEMY! The Jazz scene is my all time favorite part about the Spider-Man trilogy. You can't have it go for to long! Okay maybe you can, but I still think it's the perfect cringe length.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Carbo said:
I hope you realize the only reason Spider-Man 4 got cancelled is because Raimi willingly withdrew from the project due to him not considering it possible to finish the movie when Sony wanted it done, and he hated every iteration of the script that the creative team was shitting out for him.
Bear in mind that Raimi also admitted that he was very disappointed with how Spider-Man 3 turned out, and he's the one who made the film. The critical reception for the third film was mixed at best, which coming off of the first two films very high ratings must have been somewhat nerve-wracking for Raimi.

While we only ever really got Raimi's side of things in that whole affair (beyond a "Raimi withdrew from Spider-Man 4 so it's cancelled" from Sony), he makes a rather telling admission in it: When he withdrew from the project, he told them to "Go ahead with your reboot, which you?ve been planning anyway."

Why would Sony want to reboot if they were satisfied with the reception of the third film?

So in my opinion, yeah, he got the boot. He felt he couldn't make a picture good enough so salvage the mess he'd made of the third film, and as such, it killed the Raimi franchise. He may declare it an amicable split, but it's also not as though Sony said "No no, you take the extra year that you need to make the movie you want" because let's be honest, they wound up taking that extra year anyway in making ASM.


Carbo said:
Being a turd isn't stopping Sony's extended plans to continue the TASM series, even after TASM2's cripplingly mediocre reception. Spider-Man 3 was still the movie that made Sony the most money out of any Spider-Man movie, and the only reason that series died is because Sony were terrible at handling a plan B.
Transformers 2 did about as well as Spider-Man 3, so obviously we can agree that being absolute garbage has little relation to box-office success. Particularly when series are involved.

ASM-2's reception is so far actually notably better than Spider-Man 3's, of course. And given Bob's penchant for declaring the original Spider-Man films as being better simply because of the dearth of comparable material at the time, the fact that we're now living in The Age of Marvel would tend to undermine his hatred of the ASM films.

As it stands, despite what I consider obvious and glaring flaws, I rather like the first two Spider-Man films. Hell, Spider-Man was one of the first three films I bought on DVD back in the day. And I haven't been interested enough in ASM to bother seeing either of them in theaters instead of just waiting for it to show up on Netflix.

But that doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man 3 was terrible, and that Bob is trying way too hard to convince people to share in his Raimi fanboyism.
 

Raku-Gosha

New member
Apr 21, 2014
48
0
0
What a fun video! Took a cue from Jim's Movie Defense Force huh? Glad, you skipped out on making a shitty animated opening ha ha.

I was hoping we'd get two escape to the movies this week! and boy was I not disappointed. Was expecting(preferred) a double dipping in two new movies but a retro review of Spider man 3 works. I can just imagine the discussions it's spurred.


OT: I've always been irked by Toby Maguires portrayal of Spiderman and this review sheds some light onto why. He does come off as a cringe-inducing dork. I certainly didn't admire or look up to him, but if that was the point they succeeded marvelously. When he was Spiderman (and kept the mask on) he was indeed cool. Awesome even.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I... liked Spider-Man 3 more than Spider-Man 2. I just can't really explain why, but I don't enjoy Spider-Man 2 all that much. I didn't think it was really all that good. One reason why is that you shouldn't very obviously foreshadow the ending to the film every eight minutes. Crap like that destroyed any and all tension. Spider-Man 3, for all its flaws, I actually enjoyed more, although still regret going to see in theaters. First one is still definitely the stand-out of the trilogy though.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
If we're supposed to buy the Spider-Man trilogy as an exercise in sincerity, the Venom/black costume sub-plot screws that trajectory up royally.

Sure, I can buy that black-outfit-emo-disco Peter is supposed to be some sort of goofy "nerd thinks he's cool" riff, but then in the jazz club everyone thinks Peter is genuinely cool. It doesn't work without some sort of consistency, and the whole thing smacks of the sort of jaded irony MB seems to think distinguishes the film's critics. Understandably, perhaps, if the Venom thing was as crowbarred in to Raimi's movie as the scuttlebutt seems to suggest- a kind of in-movie criticism of an unloved element- but still not laudable.

I agree that the Sandman origin scene was surprisingly effective, though.
 

Crimsonmonkeywar

New member
Oct 27, 2013
120
0
0
And that's my cue that you and I have nothing in common, which is okay. I still like to read reviews of people that have polarizing opinions, but know I know how seriously I can take your opinion when it comes to my own preferences.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
I dunno, I can buy some of your points. Peter dirty-dancing down the streets I bought for basically the reason you said; the symbiote can't make Peter cool because Peter doesn't know what cool is and the symbiote is an alien. The Jazz club scene was a mess, though. Didn't do what needed to be done for the narrative at that point.
I do think the birth of the Sandman was one of the best sequences of the entire three movies, and the overall approach to the Sandman isn't bad, but the whole "I'm trying to save my daughter" motivation basically gets no satisfying resolution whatsoever because it was only thrown in to make Sandman seem sympathetic and thus no thought was actually put into where that should have gone. That's a really bad writing flaw for any story based medium.
Harry Osborn getting amnesia so that we can remind the audience why Harry was once Peter's friend was a really stupid idea. A better approach would have been to have Harry actually try to forgive Peter after finding out that his father was the Green Goblin. Then you have Mary Jane being worried about Peter's behavior once the symbiote starts to take over, so she goes to Harry for help and Peter, hyped up on the testosterone boost from the symbiote, decides MJ is cheating on him, so he goes and beats up his best friend. That would have been a much better build-up to him becoming like his father. It would have required them to actually do Harry as the second Green Goblin in a fourth film, but that would have been the better approach anyway.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't really a decent but flawed movie. It was a bad movie with several redeeming parts. But it was still better than these Amazing Spider-Man movies, because ASM as a film series has no soul. They are mechanical in writing, design and direction, with none of the little touches that made the first two Spider-Man movies into the enjoyable movies they are (despite their flaws), and that gave SM3 some scenes worth watching.
 

sketch_zeppelin

New member
Jan 22, 2010
1,121
0
0
FINALLY!!!! AFTER YEARS OF SAYING IT, SOMEBODY THAT MATTERS AGREES WITH ME!!!! Emo Peter, to me, was the best part of that movie. He's a dork and in his minds eye, that is what he thinks cool is. And every time I say that people just look at me like I'm a fool.

Bob you were spot on with this vid and continue to justify my trust in you as a film critic.
 

Silk_Sk

New member
Mar 25, 2009
502
0
0
Thank you moviebob! I was told I was crazy for liking SpiderMan 3 when it came out. Laughed at. I eventually put a lid on that feeling and started agreeing with them but could never truly stop enjoying it. Thank you for justifying that feeling.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
Raesvelg said:
ASM-2's reception is so far actually notably better than Spider-Man 3's, of course. And given Bob's penchant for declaring the original Spider-Man films as being better simply because of the dearth of comparable material at the time, the fact that we're now living in The Age of Marvel would tend to undermine his hatred of the ASM films.
It's actually not.

Spider-Man 3 has a 59 on metacritic:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/spider-man-3

ASM2:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-amazing-spider-man-2

is sitting on a 53.


RT SM3:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/

Which has a 63% which is actually a fresh rating

ASM2 on the other hand:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_amazing_spider_man_2/

Has a 55%.

Personally I've heard from more than one critic that ASM2 is so bad it's on Batman Forever level. Which is about the most damning thing anyone can say about a comic book film.
 

Eddie the head

New member
Feb 22, 2012
2,327
0
0
Well I like it more then most people, but I never liked 1 or 2 that much. They where Ok this was a little worse but ehh.
 

soh45400

New member
Jun 1, 2012
52
0
0
You are allowed to like Spider-man 3 and hate the Amazing movies but remember that Amazing is NOT going for the comics, which most people including myself haven't read, but for the excellent Specular Spider Man animated series. That alone makes it much better in my view.
Also same thing with Venom. If he is built up like in Spectacular series then he is actually very interesting.
And if I remember correctly, Peter's father did have a role in making Spider-man and Venom in that series too just like the movies.
And there may also be a generation gap issue with Bob's generation being the old nerds and ours being the new yet Bob expects Peter to be like the ones from his generation. Yes Bob you are getting too old for this.
 

Grace_Omega

New member
Dec 7, 2013
120
0
0
Gotta say, I've seen bits and pieces of the first two of these playing on TV semi-recently and I literally couldn't watch them, they seemed so cheesy and juvenile. I liked them well enough as a kid/teen but as an adult? No thanks.

Now about the "emo Peter Parker" thing. I've heard the same defense that Bob is using from multiple quarters and I think that he is correct- it's pretty clear the intention was a comedy bit where Peter plays out his ludicrous idea of what a cool badass is. I just don't think that really works in context, because we're supposed to (as Bob said) see the black suit as a bad thing and a credible threat. But once we've watched its influence turn Peter Parker into this bizarre, strutting parody of a cool dude it's just not possible to take it, and by extension the movie, seriously any more.
 

Vausch

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,476
0
0
I'm with Bob on this, really. I'll defend Spiderman 3 to the death because honestly, I think it works very well. Even the dance scene works for me. That is exactly my reason for why it works, that Peter is a dweeb and doesn't know "cool" because he really isn't. It's like a kid trying to act like an adult. Sure they think they know, but it's hilarious when they try to act grown up and don't know the finer details of it all.
 

RavenTail

New member
Oct 12, 2010
55
0
0
Raesvelg said:
Carbo said:
I hope you realize the only reason Spider-Man 4 got cancelled is because Raimi willingly withdrew from the project due to him not considering it possible to finish the movie when Sony wanted it done, and he hated every iteration of the script that the creative team was shitting out for him.
Bear in mind that Raimi also admitted that he was very disappointed with how Spider-Man 3 turned out, and he's the one who made the film. The critical reception for the third film was mixed at best, which coming off of the first two films very high ratings must have been somewhat nerve-wracking for Raimi.

While we only ever really got Raimi's side of things in that whole affair (beyond a "Raimi withdrew from Spider-Man 4 so it's cancelled" from Sony), he makes a rather telling admission in it: When he withdrew from the project, he told them to "Go ahead with your reboot, which you?ve been planning anyway."

Why would Sony want to reboot if they were satisfied with the reception of the third film?

So in my opinion, yeah, he got the boot. He felt he couldn't make a picture good enough so salvage the mess he'd made of the third film, and as such, it killed the Raimi franchise. He may declare it an amicable split, but it's also not as though Sony said "No no, you take the extra year that you need to make the movie you want" because let's be honest, they wound up taking that extra year anyway in making ASM.


Carbo said:
Being a turd isn't stopping Sony's extended plans to continue the TASM series, even after TASM2's cripplingly mediocre reception. Spider-Man 3 was still the movie that made Sony the most money out of any Spider-Man movie, and the only reason that series died is because Sony were terrible at handling a plan B.
Transformers 2 did about as well as Spider-Man 3, so obviously we can agree that being absolute garbage has little relation to box-office success. Particularly when series are involved.

ASM-2's reception is so far actually notably better than Spider-Man 3's, of course. And given Bob's penchant for declaring the original Spider-Man films as being better simply because of the dearth of comparable material at the time, the fact that we're now living in The Age of Marvel would tend to undermine his hatred of the ASM films.

As it stands, despite what I consider obvious and glaring flaws, I rather like the first two Spider-Man films. Hell, Spider-Man was one of the first three films I bought on DVD back in the day. And I haven't been interested enough in ASM to bother seeing either of them in theaters instead of just waiting for it to show up on Netflix.

But that doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man 3 was terrible, and that Bob is trying way too hard to convince people to share in his Raimi fanboyism.
Did you even watch the video? Like serious, did you? No where during it did Bob say SM3 was good. In fact he says multiple times what a mess it was and while even pointing out the good moments comments that they're not perfect either.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Ashoten said:
Cognitive dissonance Bob.
You kind of have to explain where the cognitive dissonance is, or else this just comes off like you're saying words you've heard and that you comprehend are not complimentary but that you don't understand.

As for the review itself...okay, fine, I will grant that the movie technically competent. The characters and their actions make sense, the plot is a plot, all that. Its pieces work. My complaint is that they work to make something I don't want. I have an extremely low tolerance for embarrassment, so low that I don't like to watch people on screens doing embarrassing things, and this movie has way too much embarrassment for me to feel comfortable watching it. Between that and Raimi's nauseating love of melodrama, just about the only scene I like is Harry and MJ in the kitchen, which I like because I'm pretty sure it's just the two of them improvving the entire thing and riding on James Franco's charisma.

I know I've argued a lot against fans of the Webb series, but that's mostly been because I think their arguments are bad. If someone had pointed to Spider-Man 3 and said, "I don't care if that movie is technically competent, I think it's boring and would prefer to watch a movie that's less competent but at least entertaining," then I'd have nothing to say because I feel the same way. If nothing else, a bad movie lets me invent my own fun. A boring movie, though...there's nothing I can do with that.

(Oh wait, I forgot the scene of Eddie Brock crying in the church. I also love that scene. Not the whole thing, not the utter bullshit of him deciding it's weird to hear church bells ringing in a church and then developing super vision so he can see Peter Parker is Spider-Man, but watching his face crumble and then shore up again as he tries to contain the pain and the humiliation he's endured is a fine piece of acting, and one I'm glad I've seen.)
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Spiderman 3 is one of those movies where I'll admit that it's flawed but still think it gets way more hate than it deserves, especially because most of the hatred is leveled squarely at a 5 minute segment of the 2 and a half hour runtime.
 

pandorum

New member
Mar 22, 2011
249
0
0
Movie Bobs' Rami fanboy is showing. The amazing spider man films are more in-line with the the cartoon that was on fox kids from back in the day. Which is unanimously the best cartoon for spider man. TBF the new spider films are so much better.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
daibakuha said:
It's actually not.
There's an interesting divide in both of those cases between reception from critics and reception from the audience.

If you do that, then the numbers flip, drastically. 7.8 user score on MT for ASM2 vs SM3's 6.1, similarly 77% positive vs 51% positive on RT.

I tend to put more weight on audience reactions than critical reactions, given that no matter how shitty a movie is to critics, if the audience enjoys it people will watch it. Hence the existence of the Transformers franchise.
 

bobdole1979

New member
Mar 25, 2009
63
0
0
yeah Spiderman 3 had a really stupid plot and bad characters. Amazing Spiderman 2 had a stupid plot but really amazing characters.
 

coheedswicked

New member
Mar 28, 2010
142
0
0
Dandres said:
Called it, and in 20 years we will be talking about how the ASM's are better than what has come out in the next bunch of Spider reboots. Nostalgia raises the appraisal value of everything.
Idk... everyone still pretty much hates the Shumacher Batman movies. Once the Amazing Spider-man gets to the point of embarrassing itself on par with the "bat nipples" (and it definitely will)... no one will touch Spider-man for 10-15 years then hopefully we'll get a really great Spider-man film. A film that can finally capture all the aspects of the character. What I always loved about Spider-man in the comics is how human he was. He has real-world, relatable problems like girls, money, etc (which ASM completely fails to capture), as well as super-villians to face. And while he faces super vilians he tires to what he thinks a super hero should be: fair, just, using his powers responsibly, like Captain America (or Superman) but often he lets his emotions and the heat of the moment get to him. On multiple occasions he has thrown caution to the wind and has nearly beat some villains to death in the midst of rage (and this wasn't even in the 90's when every hero was doing this, this was in the 60's). Spider-man (imo) was Stan Lee's best written character.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
RavenTail said:
Did you even watch the video? Like serious, did you? No where during it did Bob say SM3 was good. In fact he says multiple times what a mess it was and while even pointing out the good moments comments that they're not perfect either.
Did you even read what I wrote? Like serious, did you? No where during it did I say that Bob said the film was good. What I dispute is his assertion that the film is not bad. And before you try to say that he never said such a thing, from Bob's own mouth and I quote: "In fact, I'd say it's not bad period."
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
Raesvelg said:
There's an interesting divide in both of those cases between reception from critics and reception from the audience.

If you do that, then the numbers flip, drastically. 7.8 user score on MT for ASM2 vs SM3's 6.1, similarly 77% positive vs 51% positive on RT.

I tend to put more weight on audience reactions than critical reactions, given that no matter how shitty a movie is to critics, if the audience enjoys it people will watch it. Hence the existence of the Transformers franchise.
More people have seen Spider-Man 3 than ASM2. SM3 is also more readily available for consumption. User reviews are meaningless because most people are idiots. Hence the transformers franchise.
 

PH3NOmenon

New member
Oct 23, 2009
294
0
0
I'm glad to finally hear my thoughts on black-suit peter given voice. That scene is exactly what it needed to be. Socially awkward penguin Peter Parker, high on black alien goop, living out his own fantasy and interpretation of being cool.

I always enjoyed black-suit spidey. Not Venom as a character, though the Venom and Carnage art-style is sweet, but the whole addiction hook? That always worked for me.

It's still an irredeemably bad movie though.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.
This is part of what really gets me. My dad is a huuuuuuuge Spidey nerd. I mean, he had other comics, but his Spider-Collection was huge by the time I was born, and so on top of reading contemporary 80s Spider-Man, I also got to read a bunch of the classic comics. Nothing quite as vintage as an original Amazing Fantasy 15, but I got to see not only pretty early Spider-Man, but also the evolution of Peter and his alter-ego.

Parker wasn't really a wuss for very long. He was still an insecure, nerdy, kid with problems, but it didn't take long for him to confront his bully to the point he was no longer getting beat up, and then they eventually would become buddies. People complained about Garfield's Peter as a "jock," but by college, he was incredibly fit and made no effort to hide it. And that's decades of comics right there. Well before Venom came on the scene.

Apparently, Raimi was trying to be true to a very few number of comic years, and by that metric, he wasn't really all that successful, either.

Zhukov said:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.
I hated them first!

...Well, by the metric of the video I am apparently an emo hipster, so the line fits. >.>

I hope no problem with "emotion," but these movies were camp as hell. Some of the scenes could have been swapped with 60s Batman scenes and I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

But these were hailed as life-changing movies. I mean, the CG was fun back before it became dated, and the movies aren't without merit, but...wot.

Ashoten said:
Cognitive dissonance Bob. You know all about that so I am surprised at you for your ongoing crusade against this new spider man.
Maybe he's auditioning for J Jonah Jameson?

One of the stranger things is hearing how these movies (Amazing) make him "tired" then listening to him weave in another rant about them.

Symion said:
Looks like Bob has re-joined the Movie Defense Force.

Welcome back to the fold.
Or swapped places with Jim. Jim's latest was....Interesting.

Dandres said:
Called it, and in 20 years we will be talking about how the ASM's are better than what has come out in the next bunch of Spider reboots. Nostalgia raises the appraisal value of everything.
Well, not us. Nostalgia tends to lock people in place. That's why Tom Baker is such a favourite in the Doctor Who circles. He was the first one they were exposed to. And then again for Dave Tennant[footnote]Yes, Eccleston was the first New Who Doctor, but he was also short-lived and more people seem to count Tennant as their first[/footnote] (to the point that Who fans looked for any reason to hate Smith, even for things done on Tennant's run and in Classic Who).

Tobey was terrible as Spider-Man, but he was big in a major version, so....

punipunipyo said:
this new hipster-parker is lame...
So is it official? Has "hipster" lost all meaning now? I mean, he's a bit of a dickhe,d but come on....
 

Rot Krieg

New member
Feb 6, 2008
81
0
0
Oh my god! I'm not the only one! I not only didn't hate the dance in the street, but it was so utterly absurd I loved it. Still didn't like the movie, but at least I know there's someone else out there who thought it had redeeming qualities.
 

Ashoten

New member
Aug 29, 2010
251
0
0
JimB said:
Ashoten said:
Cognitive dissonance Bob.
You kind of have to explain where the cognitive dissonance is, or else this just comes off like you're saying words you've heard and that you comprehend are not complimentary but that you don't understand.
You mean its just as worn out as telling someone that they are just saying words if they don't have a 20 paragraph response? Please you are so clever I am awed.

Bob hates Amazing Spider-man because it is a big company (sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing. What? you thought that Disney was making these because they genuinely want to make cool movies? They don't have a business plan? Of course they do. The ugly thing here is Bobs Nintendo fanboy-ism is bleeding through into his movie reviews and disdain for Sony. His whole review of ASM 2 reeks of un-professionalism. I thought that was obvious though.

But if you don't think Bob has a bias against Sony go watch his gameoverthinker videos on Screwattack.
 

Coakle

New member
Nov 21, 2013
219
0
0
Spiderman 3 still holds the title for best boss battle and aftermath in a superhero movie. Harry Osborn, after some self reflection, teams up with his friend Peter against Sandman & Venom. The team-up didn't have any macho, grudging respect aspect to it. Not that there's anything wrong with those kinds of team-ups. I dug that the team-up came about on a personal level. When the chips were down, Harry and Peter both sincerely care about Mary Jane, and one another. It was sweet.

Now that I think of it, the Spiderman trilogy were the only movies that had a character's death leave an impact on me.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Bob you really have to stop calling people "wrong". You did this with Sucker Punch too.

There is no being "wrong" about art, even if we know the artists intention, every interpretation (within reason of course) is equally valid. It is part of what makes something "art" to begin with, I think it's staggering that someone who clearly knows about art doesn't know this, it is one of the most elementary things and you still get it wrong.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Ashoten said:
You mean it's just as worn out as telling someone that they are just saying words if they don't have a twenty-paragraph response? Please, you are so clever I am awed.
I did not say or imply anything like any of the things you said in that paragraph. If you want to be mad at me, please limit your anger to things I actually said.

Ashoten said:
Bob hates the Amazing Spider-Man because it is a big company's (Sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Are you unaware that he said in Tuesday's video what he considers the difference to be, or are you just ignoring as irrelevant? If the latter, then why?
 

LobsterFeng

New member
Apr 10, 2011
1,766
0
0
How come no one ever talks about how funny that scene where JJJ was trying to control his anger was? That's like the only thing I enjoyed from the movie personally. But I guess we don't need someone to point out that JK Simmons will always be awesome.
 

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
Surprised you didn't go on the "too many villains" angle some more, but I suppose you already addressed that. Basically, the movie wouldn't have worked (or would have worked even less) without all 3 villains to balance each other out, notably as Harry does a Heel/Face Turn in the climax to make the big final battle with Sandman and Venom a 2 vs 2. But I liked your take on the "emo Pete" angle and think you probably nailed why Raimi made it that way.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Nope. You're wrong about Spider-man 3. Swing and a miss.

The retcon of the death of Uncle Ben is the worst thing that has ever been put on film. It's way worse than anything in the new movies.

With great power comes . . . well nothing because you stopping the guy wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
 

Joos

Golden pantaloon.
Dec 19, 2007
662
0
0
I always thought the 3 "original" Spider-Man movies where great, part because of them being a bit camp. Sure, the story of mo 3 is a bit of a clusterfuck but most of it at least makes sense and the actors are great! Too bad that series got Sonied to death.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Spiderman 3 made me temporarily hate Spiderman. Yes, it was that bad. I burst out laughing in the theater when emo Parker was doing his little street dance. It's a great movie - as a comedy.
 

K_Dub

New member
Oct 19, 2008
523
0
0
Interesting. Certainly adds some new perspective to a movie that I never like at all. Dunno if I still like it all that much. It's still a disjointed mess of a movie, with too many dumb, unnecessary sub plots, but it does have its moments of genuine good scattered throughout.

I'll have to go back in and watch it again to see if I can take away something new from it.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.
You know, I don't agree with Bob on much, but if there's one thing I can get behind him on it's that Spider-Man 3 isn't as bad as people thought it was, and that Venom was mildly interesting one time when he first appeared in comics. Every appearance after that he's been a boring, one dimensional character that Marvel can never seem to decide whether he should be a villain or a hero, all the while not realizing that the only thing that ever made him interesting was his stalker-esque original portrayal. Not by being a "dark and edgey," version of Spider-Man.
 

Silverspetz

New member
Aug 19, 2011
152
0
0
Ashoten said:
JimB said:
Ashoten said:
Cognitive dissonance Bob.
You kind of have to explain where the cognitive dissonance is, or else this just comes off like you're saying words you've heard and that you comprehend are not complimentary but that you don't understand.
You mean its just as worn out as telling someone that they are just saying words if they don't have a 20 paragraph response? Please you are so clever I am awed.
Doesn't take 20 paragraphs to come up with an argument, but what you have now isn't an argument at all.

Ashoten said:
Bob hates Amazing Spider-man because it is a big company (sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Did you somehow miss the numerous times Bob has explained the difference between Sony and Disney in this regard? One company uses gimmicks and continuity wisely while focusing on delivering a solid stand-alone movie FIRST. The other one constantly blunders in the storytelling department because they are more interested in throwing in the gimmicks and callbacks to hook comic-book fans, and it is detrimental to their movie.

See this is where that little thing called "explaining" comes in, and it didn't take 20 paragraphs either.

Ashoten said:
What? you thought that Disney was making these because they genuinely want to make cool movies? They don't have a business plan? Of course they do. The ugly thing here is Bobs Nintendo fanboy-ism is bleeding through into his movie reviews and disdain for Sony.
We can only speculate whether Marvel/Disney puts their business before their desire to make good movies (they probably do though), that doesn't change the fact that they have still managed to make lots of money AND put enough care into their movies that they come out good. It is a simple matter of which franchise has the better filmmaking skill. I suggest you actually address that before you continue with your little fantasy narrative about how all that matters is whether or not the company makes money.

Ashoten said:
His whole review of ASM 2 reeks of un-professionalism. I thought that was obvious though.
I don't think you quite understand the meaning of "professionalism". It doesn't mean stone-faced, no-nonsense reciting of facts about the movie. Bob has always added a personal touch to his reviews, and while there may be more of that than usual in this case, it doesn't stop him from delivering an honest review either. He still gives us the important facts of the movie as he sees them (incoherent plot, badly developed characters, etc...).

Ashoten said:
But if you don't think Bob has a bias against Sony go watch his gameoverthinker videos on Screwattack.
I have followed them quite well, and this accusation is hardly true either, which I suspect you know because you have once again failed to explain WHAT you are talking about. You seem to think that all of your opinions are self-explanatory and so you forget to apply any kind of logic or critical thinking to them.
 

Tiamattt

New member
Jul 15, 2011
557
0
0
Yeah....this reminds me of those jokes that no one laughs at, and still barely spits up a polite chuckle once why it was supposed to be funny is explained in full detail. Congrats your audience now understands what your jokes means, doesn't change the fact that they didn't find your joke funny. Just like you can explain all the intentions/meaning of the film as much as you want, that doesn't change the fact that people were unhappy while they were sitting through it. Like if someone were to make a video on why Amazing Spiderman 2 isn't nearly as bad as Bob's video made it out to be, no matter how valid their points might be would that have remotely any chance of changing Bob's mind on how bad he thought the movie was? Would it change the fact that watching it made him so sad that listening to him talk about it was making me feel sorry for him?

IMO Spiderman 3 was absolutely terrible, and will probably be on my top 5 list of worst movies I've ever watched for many years to come. I guess it was nice of moviebob for making a video trying to explain why "I'm wrong", but that really doesn't do anything for past me that was miserable sitting in that theater. For all the people that did enjoyed SM3, great for you, I truly mean that. That means you were happy and you got your money's worth, which can only be a good thing. Sadly enough I thought it really, really sucked and a video explanation many years later doesn't change that for me.

Although maybe he would've had better luck if he didn't go with the "Your opinion is wrong" approach, that's as productive as trying to start a debate with a insult.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
I for one liked that sandman was uncle ben's killer.
Added an extra layer to it imo.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
Meh. I still prefer the ASM movies to Spiderman 3. ASM 2 I feel slightly edges out 3 because it had Emma Stone in it. And yes, I'm shallow, what of it?

I do agree that Toby Maguire was a better Peter Parker. Still, I kinda like the socially awkward vibe Garfield gives Peter.

I will agree though that the original two Spiderman movies were great.
piscian said:
Agreed on all points. That's the problem - Spider-man 3 is literally 3 movies crammed into one. Thomas hayden and the sandman story AMAZING. So good. You could actually cut out most of the movie and have a good short film about Sandman. The Goblin storyline if it was fleshed out was a great movie on it's own. Unfortunately I have to agree with Bob for informational and nostalgia purposes I went back and reread or wiki'd the whole venom backstory and maximum carnage nonsense. It's all garbage it really is. Venom as a concept is neat but no writer to this date has been able to add any depth to venom or eddie brock. YOu will never see a section of marvel knights or selfcontained Graphic novel about venom. There's just nothing to say.
Didn't Venom get his own short comic series? Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

SKBPinkie

New member
Oct 6, 2013
552
0
0
You critics throw a hissy fit when people even remotely suggest that your opinion on something is "wrong". Try and treat us with the same amount of respect.
 

Leemaster777

New member
Feb 25, 2010
3,311
0
0
I'm glad we're of the same opinion, Bob. I also liked Spiderman 3. Not the best of the trilogy (by a long shot), but still entertaining and fun in it's own right.

I can understand why people wouldn't like it, but I've never quite understood the unreserved hate it gets. Or rather, the AMOUNT of unreserved hate it gets.
 

Guilen-

New member
Mar 14, 2009
53
0
0
1. The 90s were AWESOME
2. Venom was always badass in a good (entertaining) way, and your knocking on him only points out how you relate more to Parker. Venom, in terms of the badass spirit of comics (sacred thing, man), was always one of the coolest.
3. You've made me really want to actually watch the film for the first time. Your review is the first time I didn't consider the idea of Topher Grace as Venom to be a total travesty.
4. Still like your thoughts here for the most part.
 

DoctorImpossible

New member
Jan 18, 2013
100
0
0
I have long said the scene of dancing Peter strutting down the street was one of my very favorite parts of the entire series. It's absolutely hilariously bad and I love it. And I've never been able to articulate why but Bob did it for me. So thanks for that.
 

DoctorImpossible

New member
Jan 18, 2013
100
0
0
Also, regarding Venom: It's difficult to translate that character fully to screen in a way satisfactory to me, because it was originally doled out to readers over a period of several years in the comics, in a big long mystery that I ate up because I was 12 (although I think the storyline still holds up well, I can't deny nostalgia's influence)

When Pete first found the suit in Secret Wars it was the coolest thing! we'd never really seen Spidey change his costume before. And of course it looked badass. And then he gets back to earth, starts feeling tired all the time ( because the suit is taking him out at night while he sleeps), he's getting more violent, having nightmares what the hell is going on? It was good times. Great, mysteriuous, long form storytelling that just can't happen in feature films.

I blame the 90's for turning Venom into another vigilante Punisher ripoff. That's when Venom really went downhill imo.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
As a non-comic reader, the way I saw the Venom conflict was that the Black Suit represented the deepest and darkest aspects of himself and fighting Venom in the end only made sense.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
I've never been the largest fan of the rami movies. I don't hate them, but they don't gel with me. The first is kind of obvious: it works, but it's mostly material any fan knows like the back of their hand. When one half the movie is re-telling one of the most prolific super hero origins, and the other half is a Green Goblin re-tread, there just wasn't much to go wow over the way the fight in the Avengers did. 3, you explain well, everything in it (with one exception I;ll get into) is well done and worked on it's own, but you can't but fried chicken, mountain dew and chocolate ice cream in a blender and come out with the ultimate drink as great tastes don't always blend. 2 had the same problem on the other end, Peter's life got so sad sack it was hard to take seriously, especially when so many problems were self inflicted less by Spider-Man and more by shitty time management and pre-prepared excuses. Spider-Man is supposed to interfere with his life, but it did to such a extreme it was hard to see how he could manage being a hero when he couldn't master early life.

That lack of subtlety is the big issue with 3: aka dark Peter. Yeah, what you say is the point, but these kind of stories only work when the change is gradual and natural. When you don't know if there's a problem at first until something goes wrong. Dark Peter was more in the vein of those old drug PSAs that had someone go from one reefer to selling their body for heroin almost overnight. So instead of Peter trying to be cool and badass and finding it comes witha cost he's not willing to pay, we get "just say no to alien symbiotes".

I'll also disagree with venom as a bad character, at least in concept. It wasn't that Venom was just "evil Spider man" but rather it was totally fucking personal. With most of his usual bad guys, they wanted money or the like, and they didn't usualy kill for shits and giggles or weren't likely to be stopped by the hundreds of other heroes in the city. Venom lived to destroy Peter, and had the power set to do just that. That single mindedness and power set makes the ultimate nemesis. The problem really came from the comics code at the time and the usual comic book rules: Peter had very little life for Venom to destroy, and what little he had, he couldn't touch because you couldn't kill supporting cast willy nilly. Then, he quickly got overused, and it went downhill, bounced back a bit with the Lethal Protector concept, but lost that and fell apart completely about the start of the clone saga and never bounce back totally.

And on a personal level, could you please read your own pice on adhering to the source material and then elaborate on why a less nerdy Peter or the thing with his father is a problem beyond them being a change from the source material. I'm no defender of the new movies or these decisions, but there are times I get the impression you give other people crap for fanboyism and dislike of change you can partake in yourself.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Tiamattt said:
This reminds me of those jokes that no one laughs at, and still barely spits up a polite chuckle once why it was supposed to be funny is explained in full detail.
That's actually a pretty apt summary of my take on the movie. I kind of wish I'd come up with it. Good on you.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
Unfortunately, more interesting, or no, Raimi also apparently killed off Venom, IIRC. Granted, with the nature of symbiotes it might be possible to deny that, and I do think there will inevitably be a symbiote movie.

Venom just seemed under utilized, and, well, not bulky. Just seemed wrong, seeing Venom mirror spiderman's physical form so much.

Yes, I am a Venom fan, though it's more the Eddie Brock host era, and some of the She-Venom arc. After that, Flash, Scorpion, etc, not so much.
 

HemalJB

New member
Oct 10, 2011
43
0
0
Saying Emo-Parker made sense in the context of the movie is like saying Bane and Talia's anti-climactic deaths made sense in TDKR, or that the destruction of Metropolis and Zod's death made sense in the context of MoS. Just because it's right in the movie doesn't mean I'll like it.
Having said that, the one thing I like about Spiderman 3, it's that the villains aren't nice guys who were corrupted by science to become monsters. Sandman was always bad, and his motivations make sense. Harry wanted vengeance for his father. Venom....didn't get time to become efficient but at least he was always bad. These villains make them the best of all Spiderman films, especially the reboot where the main villains are "Science made me evil" types we've seen before.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
I can't figure out how he doesn't understand why people who are Venom fans (and I'm definitely one of them) were so disappointed by the depiction of Venom in Spider-man 3.

What makes Venom (and Eddie Brock) interesting is not necessarily that he's a monster version of Spiderman (though he does look extremely cool) it's the fact that he's basically a dark reflection of everything about not just Spider-man, but Peter Parker. Parker is a dweeby, skinny little teenager who gets (or got) bullied, Brock is a muscle-bound meathead who, while not necessarily a bully, doesn't take anyone's shit. Spider-man is the stereotypical good guy who avoids using violence whenever possible, Venom has a strange sense of morality and justice, he simply takes it to the extreme and believes murdering criminals is acceptable. Parker/Spider-man is a logical character who uses science, Venom/Brock lets his emotions take over and dictate his actions. Because of this, Venom isn't necessarily 'cooler', he's just out of control. The Punisher, for all his psychotic violence, at least could generally keep his emotions in check.

The biggest thing the movie missed is that, in the comics, Brock is humiliated and fired not because he faked a story, but because he made a mistake that was later revealed by Spider-man. He's not necessarily a scummy person, he simply blames all the bad things that have befallen him on Spider-man, and reacts in a way that a bully would: by lashing out.

Also I always liked how Brock would always refer to himself as "we" and the symbiote as "my other", the movie totally missed that.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Sandman is the best part about Spider-Man 3, the "flaws" Bob mentions are pretty much the entirety of the rest of the movie, but that doesn't make it unwatchable, just messy and a bit disappointing.

But that's boring.

Here's what's interesting: Your're wrong about Spider-Man 1.

Spider-Man 1 is the worst of the three movies.

It's the worst of all the Spider-Man movies, ASM included. It's just an incompetent film.

As it turns out, we are all basically unable to noticed this because:

a) it's prefaced by a kick-ass 30 minute short film about the origin story of Spider-Man.
b) It was 2001 and red/blue wearing superheroes living in New York maybe were serendipitously relevant to the zeitgeist.
c) That upside down kiss scene.

But as a film? It's terrible. It's the product of a decade of rewrites that ends with David Koepp hacking to pieces a previous script that had the Green Goblin basically steal the whole movie. Instead, it refocused on the Peter-MJ-Harry love triangle, which means that once Uncle Ben kicks it the film is impaired by needing to have a villain for Peter to punch in the third act when, really, there's nothing in the film that requires this, storytelling-wise.

This leaves Peter with something to do (get the girl, even at the cost of the friendship with Harry, who is dating her at the time), soapy as it is, but not Spider-Man. Spider-Man just swings around webbing up cartoon robbers with black beanies. Meanwhile, the Green Goblin poses no threat to him or anybody he knows. The Green Goblin actually wins halfway through the movie, as his main goal is to kill his board of directors and regain control of Oscorp. Seriously, he does this really fast. Spider-man doesn't even know he exists until that point, as their first confrontation happens AFTER the board of Oscorp is dead (in an earlier draft, there's this whole cat-and-mouse section as Spidey tries to keep GG from killing the board, but that's gone from the final film).

At that point, Gobby is as aimless as Spidey, so the film does something extremely weird: It has GG stalk Spidey because he likes him a lot.

Now, this would make sense if at this point in the script Norman knew that Peter, who he likes more than his own son, is Spider-Man. But he doesn't. He just sort of develops this man-crush on a superhero and goes about giving him a roofie so he can propose... something. Ruling the city? Maybe? It's unclear how superpowers would help there, since Norman is back to being filthy rich at that point. Nothing makes any sense.

This, lest you think is just a sub-plot, is the entirety of GG's motivation all the way to the finale. Seriously, rewatch the movie, there is absolutely nothing Spidey is doing to thwart Gobby because there's no evil plan for Gobby to execute at this point, he got what he wanted about half an hour earlier. Gobby kidnaps MJ literally because he's jealous and Spidey rejected his "GG x Spidey forevs XOXOXO" note.

But, like I said, none of that mattered, because the film had Spidey swinging past the US flag, and doing the inverted kiss thing and it has that great origin story and that funny scene where Norman has Thanksgiving dinner with Spidey. They're flashes, though, and out of the context of the era, the film is very, very poorly put together. More so than Raimi's other disjointed classics like, say Army of Darkness.

Spider-Man 2 is a good movie, though.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
The problem with Spider-Man 3 was the fact that Sony meddled with it by forcing Sam Raimi into using Venom when he didn't want to. After making two great movies that made Sony lots of money, you'd think Sony would just let Raimi do what he does best with the third movie. But instead, they forced him to shoehorn in Venom.

Venom is a major character. He is not someone you just throw into the story. You have to build him, and Eddie Brock up. If he wasn't in the movie, we could have had a lot more time devoted to Harry and Sandman, which would be way better. Sandman looked cool, but he was misused because time was taken from him for Eddie/Venom. Spider-Man 3 would have been way better if Venom wasn't actually in the movie, even though Venom is my favourite Spider-Man villain/anti-hero.
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
RandV80 said:
I haven't seen them but I get the impression that the new Amazing Spiderman movie series is corporate packaged specifically targeting today's ADD-orientated youthful audience. Probably why it irritates Movie Bob so much... myself included though since I'm not a movie critic I don't have to see them.
You have no idea. You really have no idea and it ends apparently with a post credit scene. THAT IS A CLIP/TRAILER FOR X-MEN!
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
I can't figure out how he doesn't understand why people who are Venom fans (and I'm definitely one of them) were so disappointed by the depiction of Venom in Spider-man 3.

What makes Venom (and Eddie Brock) interesting is not necessarily that he's a monster version of Spiderman (though he does look extremely cool) it's the fact that he's basically a dark reflection of everything about not just Spider-man, but Peter Parker. Parker is a dweeby, skinny little teenager who gets (or got) bullied, Brock is a muscle-bound meathead who, while not necessarily a bully, doesn't take anyone's shit. Spider-man is the stereotypical good guy who avoids using violence whenever possible, Venom has a strange sense of morality and justice, he simply takes it to the extreme and believes murdering criminals is acceptable. Parker/Spider-man is a logical character who uses science, Venom/Brock lets his emotions take over and dictate his actions. Because of this, Venom isn't necessarily 'cooler', he's just out of control. The Punisher, for all his psychotic violence, at least could generally keep his emotions in check.

The biggest thing the movie missed is that, in the comics, Brock is humiliated and fired not because he faked a story, but because he made a mistake that was later revealed by Spider-man. He's not necessarily a scummy person, he simply blames all the bad things that have befallen him on Spider-man, and reacts in a way that a bully would: by lashing out.

Also I always liked how Brock would always refer to himself as "we" and the symbiote as "my other", the movie totally missed that.
To be fair the movie didn't have enough time or even give him enough time to start pulling that kind of stuff. While they missed why he was fired he still did the other things you mentioned. I was impressed with this version of Venom on screen. I mean I didn't pick up a comic until after the Avengers came out but this big screen version of Venom satisfied me enough.
 

Depulcator

New member
Mar 5, 2012
109
0
0
Cinema Sins has my view on this movie, also sorry, like when you tried to defend Sucker Punch, the movie is just bad, accept it and move on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrDwtLl1p0A
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
Sigh...

MovieBob... just let go.

I mean I get it, the original Spiderman movies brought back that genuine goodness in comic books characters that was gravely missing at the time when most comic book writers wanted their material to be all EXTREME and EDGY! I get what it meant to you, and what it did to the whole outlook of comic book characters. How IMPORTANT it was! But looking back at it now... it didn't work! Not for Spiderman! It works for Captain America and was lost in translation in the new Man of Steel movie, but... not Spiderman! The character seems obviously more in tune with how the TASM movies are making him out to be, than how Sam Raimi ever did.

I mean I get it! The 90s sucked! Comic book characters were at their golden age during the 60s and 70s when they were made for a child's sensibilities. BUT LET'S FACE IT! Those days have past, and comic books today have taken on a wider audience as it's completely gone mainstream, beyond even what the 90s were able to dream of, and the fact of the matter is certain changes were meant to be made.

Those being:

-Batman should be dark! Fuck the campy "same bat tune, same bat channel" days. I hated that shit even when I was a kid in the 80s and Tim Burton at the time blew my stupid mind and everyone else's when he showed us how it should be done. So three cheers for Tim Burton's contributions. Hip hip hoorah!
-Wolverine will always be a product of the 90s influences, and considering how popular he still is as the stand alone and only sought after X-men when no one gives a damn about the rest of the cast (even when back then he was a bit of a "Worf effect" character) is testament that not all of the 90s sucked.

...and finally

-a more juvenile, wise-cracky, cooler Peter Park suits Spiderman a lot better!

I'm sorry... but I'm tired of the "Revenge of the Nerds" remakes. I'm the same age as you so I know where you come from having gone to high school in the 90s, but I just don't want to see another movie about the awkward teen going out of his league to get the really really hot chick that doesn't know he exist. Superbad was the last time I was willing to let that trope get away with it, and that's only because of that awesome 70s soundtrack in it, and everyone dancing in it like it's Saturday Night Fever when in the 2000s they should have been listening to Lil Jon and been crunkin'. But really! Fuck that garbage! I don't want to see it anymore. This isn't the 80s anymore, and nerds today are now considered more of the in-crowd since the PC revolution was a glorious success. And there is no need to continue playing out the "I was bullied in high school, I now want revenge" tropes. If anything, Peter Parker is still an outsider since he's now too cool in a world that's gone "Portlandia" hipster. It's like Channing Tatum's character in 21 Jump Street, where he finds himself lost and confused going back to high school when no one's there to high five him when mentioning how he bought the new Slim Shady LP. Being an outsider now has a new definition.
 

CManator

New member
Nov 8, 2010
151
0
0
Guilen- said:
1. The 90s were AWESOME
2. Venom was always badass in a good (entertaining) way, and your knocking on him only points out how you relate more to Parker. Venom, in terms of the badass spirit of comics (sacred thing, man), was always one of the coolest.
3. You've made me really want to actually watch the film for the first time. Your review is the first time I didn't consider the idea of Topher Grace as Venom to be a total travesty.
4. Still like your thoughts here for the most part.
To me, Topher as Venom WAS a travesty. He's just not intimidating, and poor writing never helps. However, Topher as Eddie Brock was highly enjoyable and probably the most redeeming aspect of the movie to me. Thankfully, Brock got far more screen time than Venom.

Sorry Bob, my opinion on SM3 hasn't changed. As a standalone movie it was a mess at best, and a huge disappointment compared to its predecessors. Honestly i would have preferred if they just made it about Parker vs Brock and called it a day.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
For my part... ehh.

There were some elements in Spidey 3 that I really enjoyed, Sandman was pretty damn cool, but the new goblin look was generic and a lot of story elements felt all over the place, under-developed and in some cases, something that should have had its own movie to allow breathing room, that amnesia was a cop-out, the retcon was pointless and Venom was underutilised to the point of may as well not having been there.

But yeah, it's not a bad movie, I've certainly seen worse.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Yeah, that is pretty much my opinion on the movie. Although I wasn't particularly invested in it, so I didn't care much.
My main problem with it was that since it failed we never got to see Raimi's take on the Lizard. Instead we got Amazing Spider-Man, bleh.

My problem with people disliking the 'emo Parker' has always been the same as with people picking on the whole 'I hate sand' line in the Star Wars prequels. It's supposed to be awkward. (Well, I'm not 100% sure in Lucas' case, but it certainly works in the context)
 

vviki

Lord of Midnless DPS
Mar 17, 2009
207
0
0
I'm with you on this, Bob. My favorite parts of the Spiderman series and movies is the brief parts he gets the Venom costume and gets to finally turn the tables on everyone fucking with him. He stops being stoic and taking spits in the face, he stops worrying about due process and letting criminals go to jail just be be bailed out by the corrupted cops. He turns around and doesn't just retaliate, he becomes vindictive about it, ruining Eddie Brock, hurting and humiliating the people who dared to hurt him. Almost killing Rhino in the TAS with my favorite quote "Rhino: You can't do this! Spiderman: Can't I?".

Thing is I can relate to that, I can say: if I get super powers, I'm not going to take shit from anyone. Do unto others what you'd have others do unto you, means that what they do to me, I should be doing on them. In short: Do unto others what others have done unto you. Sure, I will extend my hand for a shake, but if you don't take it, insult me and spit in my face, the left hand will come and it will be a punch in the face followed by a throw from a window. Basically Insanity Wolf mode: He laughed at me, I was laughing, while I was burying him alive.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Now I understand what the purpose of the Amazing Spider-Man reboot was: to make Spider-Man 3 look like a good movie by comparison.

(Hey, at least Tobey Maguire looks like I imagine Peter Parker to look like!)
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Sep 3, 2020
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
Frankly, I didn't like any of the Spider-man movies. Truth be told, I only saw the first Raimi movie in theaters and haven't bothered to watch any of them since. I think I may have caught most of Spider-man 2 on HBO or something, but I didn't like that one, either. So, from where I sit, there are no good Spider-man movies. And I'm fine with that. Spider-man isn't a movie character. No super hero is. They are all comic book characters. They should only be drawn. Putting someone in a costume just looks stupid.
 

Clunks

New member
Apr 21, 2010
70
0
0
I could have sworn you've gone over this before in earlier videos, Bob? Or perhaps it's something you've talked about on twitter. Either way I agree with you quite strongly on almost every point re: Spider-Man 3, although I'm not sure what you see in Tobey Maguire. Dude can't act.

I actually rewatched the Raimi trilogy quite recently, and if anything I found it was the first film I had the least patience with. It's perfectly functional and it plods along fine, hitting all the right story beats and all that, but there's not very much I find actually all that interesting in it (aside from JK Simmons' perfect J Jonah Jameson and Willem Dafoe's delightfully goofy Green Goblin). It's not a movie I find much value in watching again. Compare that with Spider-Man 3 which, sure, is a mess of contrasting ideas that just don't gel together, but the individual elements that do work are fucking great. Honestly (and here's where everyone stops reading, if they haven't already), I'd take Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 over Raimi's Spider-Man for pretty much the same reason. Sure, Webb's film is full of disparate elements that have nothing to do with each other, but it's still fun to watch, in a way Raimi's first attempt mostly isn't. I'm not saying The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will hold up to repeat viewings as well as Raimi's third, though, in fact I doubt I'd ever bother watching it again. But it kept me entertained for two hours. Most movies don't.
 

Carbo

New member
Dec 17, 2010
61
0
0
CManator said:
To me, Topher as Venom WAS a travesty. He's just not intimidating, and poor writing never helps. However, Topher as Eddie Brock was highly enjoyable and probably the most redeeming aspect of the movie to me. Thankfully, Brock got far more screen time than Venom.
You know, I feel that Venom would have been a lot better if they didn't constantly remove his mask every five seconds. The only time it really had to exist is when he reveals himself first to Peter.

Topher easily manages to go between a rather nonchalant voice to a pretty droning one that suits Venom well. It turns him into a pretty unexpected threat.
 

deathjavu

New member
Nov 18, 2009
111
0
0
Suhi89 said:
I completely agree with this. I was never a particular fan of either of the first 2 Spiderman movies but I hated Spiderman 3. I hated the romance(s), I hated the many many villains (there were, what, 4?) and I hated everything about MJ. Seriously she came across as so needy and pathetic. The totally ridiculous emo scene was the highlight for me because it was the only part of the film that I didn't find mind-crushingly boring. I payed money to see this at the cinema and it probably shares joint worst cinema going experience for me with Pirates 3.
I replied to this specifically because it brought to mind a great analogy, in regards to Pirates 3 and Spiderman 3.

Did you by any chance see Pirates 4, the one that might as well have been a reboot?

Pirates 4:pirates 3 :: What Bob claims ASM2 is like : Spiderman 3.

Sure, the 3s are messy and overwrought, overburdened with storylines that never fully mature. But the OTHER ones are soulless, cynical cash grabs with fill-in-the-blank scripts written by pre-teens.

I'll always think something that tried to go big and fell because of it is superior to something that played it utterly, utterly safe and met that expectation. I want to encourage that mentality because the former is the necessary attitude to make stuff that's truly great. The latter is the kind of thinking that keeps churning out mediocre, 7/10 video game clones every year.

(If anyone's wondering why I saw Pirates 4, let's just say I have friends with no discerning taste, we all wanted to watch a movie, and there wasn't anything else they wanted to watch in theatres. I tried to get them to pay me back the ticket money after they dragged me to it.)
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Carbo said:
CManator said:
To me, Topher as Venom WAS a travesty. He's just not intimidating, and poor writing never helps. However, Topher as Eddie Brock was highly enjoyable and probably the most redeeming aspect of the movie to me. Thankfully, Brock got far more screen time than Venom.
You know, I feel that Venom would have been a lot better if they didn't constantly remove his mask every five seconds. The only time it really had to exist is when he reveals himself first to Peter.

Topher easily manages to go between a rather nonchalant voice to a pretty droning one that suits Venom well. It turns him into a pretty unexpected threat.
Worse venom voice ever........
 

AgentLampshade

New member
Nov 9, 2009
468
0
0
I've always liked Venom, and think if done right, he can be a monstrous presence on-screen. It's just unfortunate he was so obviously shoe-horned into Spider-Man 3 that it just looked like Raimi had given up caring about the movie. It was obvious Venom shouldn't have been there and maybe been a big cliffhanger for the next film.

And then Carnage. Because Carnage is basically a superpowered Joker. And that's awesome.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Vivi22 said:
Kumagawa Misogi said:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.
You know, I don't agree with Bob on much, but if there's one thing I can get behind him on it's that Spider-Man 3 isn't as bad as people thought it was, and that Venom was mildly interesting one time when he first appeared in comics. Every appearance after that he's been a boring, one dimensional character that Marvel can never seem to decide whether he should be a villain or a hero, all the while not realizing that the only thing that ever made him interesting was his stalker-esque original portrayal. Not by being a "dark and edgey," version of Spider-Man.
I have never read the Spiderman comic were Venom first appears till recently. I knew Venom first from the 90's cartoon that was fantastic, the 90's may have sucked for comics but their cartoons were awesome.

And that's why I was really disappointed with Venom in Spiderman 3 in the cartoon's Peter Parker is terrified of Venom, an opponent who his spider-sense does not work against, an opponent who knows who he is, who knows who his loved ones are. The film did not convey that, did not have time to convey that.

As to the sand-man I found his motivation and character arc cliché and the portrayal dull rather than threatening.

For a film with 3 villain's only the first fights against both the 2nd GG and the sand-man were okay, the 2nd fight against the sand-man just happened out of nowhere and the rest of the long film was rather empty and either dry or cringe worthy.
 

Rachith Sridhar

New member
Oct 24, 2012
15
0
0
I don't hate spiderman 3 for the emo crap or the random dance sequence. I hate it coz it doesn't make sense to me.
 

The Bandit

New member
Feb 5, 2008
967
0
0
Just a friendly reminder that all of Bob's opinions are not his own. Do the majority of people like something? Well, he hates it! Do you the majority of people dislike something? Those are his most cherished thing!
 

Sanunes

New member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
0
Rachith Sridhar said:
I don't hate spiderman 3 for the emo crap or the random dance sequence. I hate it coz it doesn't make sense to me.
That I believe is because of Sony meddling with what Rami wanted to do with the movie by forcing him to make changes to the movie, instead of letting him do his thing.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
While I can see Spider-Man 3 having some good (or even very good) parts, it just doesn't come together at all for me. There is too much going on with too many characters and the pacing is way too all over the place. What I would like to see from Spider-Man 3 is actually a recut of the movie. I feel enough good parts are there to make a good movie but as it's put together now, it just doesn't work now matter how good some of those constituent parts are.
 

twosage

New member
Oct 22, 2013
61
0
0
Bob, I love you. I really do.

But this video should be linked in Webster's Dictionary.com under Stockholm Syndrome. Your affection for Spidey has been abused so long, you're starting to defend your abusers.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
3 has a good movie IN there, it's just that it didn't come out properly. Any one of the three villains could have carried a movie on their own, but they tried to cram them into one movie. The Sandman's plot was great, Harry as the Goblin had been a long time coming, and the glimpses of Venom were very interesting. Too bad there's no way you can reasonably wrap up stuff like that without it looking like a mess. Venom they just should have saved for a fourth movie, put him at a stinger at the end of the movie and then go from there. As for his casting, it was actually a good idea. Seriously, you expect me to believe some musclebound lunkhead is a reporter? Nope, not gonna buy it. Eddie as a slimeball foil to Peter? WAY better. Too bad he didn't get much to do.
 

Khanht Cope

New member
Jul 22, 2011
239
0
0
The Sandman was done great for about a quarter of the movie. Initially it seems like the film has done a great job of realizing a typically C list villain well enough to adequately fill the big screen for significant duration in the movie. As a side threat that the hero has to figure out how to beat while dealing with other kinds of major theme baggage and personal relationships/drama.

A demonstration that you don't necessarily need to rely on mandatory A list anti-thesis blockbuster villains for every movie; condemning your franchise to a cycle of:

Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Venom, Reboot

or

Joker, Riddler, Two Face, Reboot (with Catwoman mixed in there with one of them)

But then there's the Uncle Ben retcon (something bad enough to in itself alone count as a black mark against the movie) and his motivations get overly sappy in vying for the viewers emotional attention in a crammed and emotionally chaotic movie.

A major problem with that is the ridiculous amount of other shit Spiderman has to juggle with in the middle of this movie. In Spiderman 2 it worked in the sense that it was supposed to all become so much that no one could reasonably cope with without washing their hands of it all to recuperate for a while; but then this movie takes the baggage to eleven.

Spiderman has barely 2 seconds spare to think about how to deal with Sandman before the guy shows up again to give him the last headache he needs. With all the other major threads going on, Sandman's side story becomes a screen time hog taking away from stuff that needs fleshing out.

I get that the Uncle Ben retcon was supposed to hold a mirror to Peter's present experiences with Harry and give the right perspective he needs to forgive the guy and move on. But that doesn't make it alright in retroactively ruining something that was already completed brilliantly just for the sake of what's happening now in your latest movie. Find a different way!

I think the weird emo segments might have worked in their intended context, for me, (and others) if Toby wasn't clearly too old to get away with it. If it was someone like Andrew Garfield, he could probably have been able to get away with behaving like a douche in that way, and where it's more naturally apparent to the audience; since the actor is still close to an age range where people are still experimenting with their identities and are prone to behaving in dumb ways, stupidly messing up relationships etc. With other kinds of behaviour, Toby had looked just about boyish enough for a lot of it; but having Toby behave like that it's just really difficult to watch.

I think it's another wider issue with the movie that the actors for the central recurring characters look like they should have out-grown the stages where their characters are supposed to be at.

Then Eddy finally gets the suit with something retarded like 25-30 minutes to go. Where they've got to stage and resolve everything including another Mary Jane kidnapping situation, the handicap match followed by the cavalry for the 2 on 2 battle royale, deaths and character & ending resolutions.

Lastly I'll say on the topic of Venom that he is hamstrung by what various creative forces are willing and able to do with him. He is potentially Spiderman's worst nightmare on the most intimate level, and can extend a darker more villainous twist on Spidey's own sense of humour. Separating him from Spiderman in terms of compelling goals and motivation as a main antagonist is a challenge to be sure; but in relation to Spiderman, he's entirely capable of being menacing, compelling, entertaining etc.
 

PhunkyPhazon

New member
Dec 23, 2009
1,967
0
0
I agree with some of this. I've never thought Spider-Man 3 was terrible and I could never understand comparisons to the likes of, say, Batman and Robin or the Fantastic Four movies. But ultimately I still consider it a disappointment because, like he said, there were too many cooks in the kitchen. There's a lot of solid ideas, but none of it really ever gets enough focus to develop into something truly great.

Anyways, I've had something else on my mind regarding this whole Raimi trilogy vs. the Amazing franchise. No, I do not agree with Bob on the newer movies...or the first one anyways, since I haven't had the chance to see ASM2 yet. I liked it fine. I didn't "love" it, but I "like" it. I still really prefer the first two Raimi movies, because I think those really understood a certain core aspect of Spider-Man, an aspect that kinda took a backseat in Amazing. You see, while there have indeed many different versions of the character throughout the decades that will do things differently from each other, the main thing that has ALWAYS been there and is ESSENTIAL to getting the character right is this: Peter Parker is constantly giving up his own happiness in order to help and protect people as Spider-Man.

It?s the direct result of the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing and is what sets him apart from other superheroes. In a way, he?s downright selfless in this regard. For proof of this, look no further than the Spectacular Spider-Man animated series, because this show nails it. Being Spider-Man costs Peter Parker his job at ESU, respect from his friends, he gets in trouble with Aunt May for always being out late, and everyone thinks he?s a coward because he?s always running off with lame excuses whenever trouble shows up. The entire thing is summed up perfectly at the end of the Lizard episode. Fed up with his personal life turning to crap, he comes very close to drinking a gene cleanser that would rid him of his powers, but then says ?Except?I saved [Dr. Connors and his family]. So what if nobody threw a parade? Spider-Man stays because Spider-Man is needed.? This is also why it?s important for Peter Parker?s personal life to be a major part of any Spider-Man mythos. If it isn?t really ever shown or expanded on, then you can?t ever really appreciate what Peter is sacrificing by devoting so much time to helping people. Plus the audience needs to have a reason to care whenever someone close to him is put in harms way.

The Raimi movies understood this. He loses Harry?s friendship, Mary Jane nearly marries another guy, Peter makes his living by giving Jameson ammunition to trash Spider-Man in the press which also results in him living in a shitty apartment with an obnoxious yet oddly likeable landlord breathing down his neck. Peter?s regular life getting torn to shreds is a major theme in the Raimi trilogy. Hell, it?s literally the entire plot of Spider-Man 2. This is why I will never ever understand people who say that this version of Spider-Man wasn?t true to the comics. (Plus some people seem to base their whole argument off of him not wisecracking much. I prefer that too, but if that?s really your only reason as to why you don?t think this version is true to the source material then you are entirely missing the point of Spider-Man)

Amazing?doesn?t really have this (again, only talking about the first movie, I haven?t seen the second). It?s not missing, no, but it?s kinda pushed off into the background. Once Uncle Ben is out of the movie (Martin Sheen was perfection by the way), there isn?t really much of a ?regular life? supporting cast outside of Gwen and Aunt May. And the latter seems to be the only person exclusively IN his personal life, everyone else has something to do with or some major role to play in his life as Spider-Man. Gwen, Doctor Connors, Peter?s father, Captain Stacy, and?uh...yeah I guess that?s pretty much the entire relevant cast. It doesn?t feel like being Spider-Man is costing Peter anything, except for when he ?gives up? Gwen at the end only to hook up with her again two minutes later. The only thing I think Amazing did better than the original films was that it shows off Peter?s abilities as a scientist more. Sure, Macguire?s Peter was definitely still a science geek, but you never really see him putting that knowledge to use. Garfield?s Spidey comes up with his own web shooters, helps create the Lizard, makes creative use of his webs, and directs Gwen in coming up with a Lizard antidote.

Oh, and Gwen. Amazing definitely did a much better job giving us a truly likeable and capable love interest, so it gets a point there too.

That?s pretty much it though. Again, I like Amazing fine enough, I just really prefer how the older movies handled Peter?s character, and I think it has a much more interesting and varied cast. And since it doesn't look like ASM2 is really doing anything to fix my issue with that, I'm doubting the reboot franchise will ever top the first two Raimi movies in my book.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Ashoten said:
Zhukov said:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
Your right. Bob is trying to retcon history here. No one ever took the Ramey spider man movies seriously. They were still goofy and entertaining now as they were at release.
The first one has Chad Kroger on the soundtrack, so that's instantly invalidated. The second one sees the Mary Jane character get ramped up from, kind of annoying, to full-blown why does Peter Parker even like her. Which in turn makes Peter's fascination with her make him look bad by extension as well. And the death knell for a superhero movie is when you're not rooting for the hero.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Oh my god. I cracked the code. Bob only likes the dorky comic book movies. Anything attempting to be edgy or cool gets shit on regardless of whether or not it actually worked (see: Chris Nolan/Batman). Every comic book movie is measured with how the character is "supposed to be" in their 60's incarnation. If they don't act like that character from the Golden Age, then the filmmakers didn't "get" the character. If they do act like it, then every single thing they do is wonderful and great.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
On Venom: You find him boring? >.> Moreover, for reasons that have little to do with how the character is supposed to work?

As I understand it, Venom's interesting as a spidey villain because he knows everything there is to know about Spidey, can move too fast for the spider-sense and can duplicate all of Spidey's powers. Venom's essentially a dark mirror to him, made worse by the whole addiction thing as well as the symbiote's various attempts to get back onto Peter.

You have an evil monster that has all of your power (except more of it), knows everything about you and desperately wants to either kill you or steal your soul. There's plenty of interesting elements to explore there.
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
I agree with you bud. I actually found the movie just as bad as the other movies, which upon re-watching rate more as mediocre than good. This one just had enough elements of bad for people to realize just how 'okay' the trilogy is. The only difference, and this is a big difference, is that this movie had three villains when the other two had only one. If this movie had only one villain, then I think that people would see the the rest of the bad as blatantly as they do now.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,742
370
88
Country
USA
ccdohl said:
Nope. You're wrong about Spider-man 3. Swing and a miss.

The retcon of the death of Uncle Ben is the worst thing that has ever been put on film. It's way worse than anything in the new movies.

With great power comes . . . well nothing because you stopping the guy wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
Yeah, that part was pretty bad. What was worse for me:
1) Being embarrassed by Parker. He was a jerk early in the film. He was a nerd before. That's different. Now I didn't like him (early in the film). That hurt. Didn't kill, but hurt.
2) Sandman had terrible motivation. His "birth" scene was fantastic though.

Over all, I didn't get the hate. This is a great movie. Great action, effects, acting. I even like Gwen.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Just because it's supposed to be bad doesn't negate the fact that it's bad, though. Thematically it works, but as a piece in a movie, it goes on way too long, and there's never a counter realization that what he's doing hasn't made him cooler, it's only made him more obnoxious. Had he realized that on screen instead of just having a kind of bland "what am i doing" moment, it would have worked better. Sandman is a lot of visual fun, but his arc is absolutely terrible. The nonsense with Goblin Jr only exists because they suddenly needed a buddy team-up. Vulture would have been a hell of a lot more fun, but that wouldn't step to Doc Oc's performance in the previous movie where thematically appropriate lined up perfectly with both visual aesthetic and great charactization and arcing. I haven't seen ASM2 yet, so I'll hold off on saying whether it's worse than SM3, but I'll definitely agree that I'd take SM3 over TDKR.
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
Peter Parker is to Spidreman what Julie Andrews is to Mary Poppins and Judy Garland is to Wizard of Oz. He is THE Spiderman and always will be, no matter how much they try to change it.

I adore all three of the original movies, the third slightly less so, and I agree with him that The Other Edward Cullen plays it too cool and sexily to be "right."
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
V TheSystem V said:
I remember seeing this on my 14th birthday and thinking it was the best of the three. Got it on DVD the following Christmas, and did not like it as much as I had originally thought. Maybe because I wasn't with my friends laughing about bits of it as I had been in the cinema? I dunno.

Peter Parker dancing down the street is very hard to watch with a straight face, it's embarrassing. Venom was underused and shouldn't have been used unless Raimi was dedicated to focusing on him and him alone (my opinion). Sandman was great, but I was pretty damn annoyed at the retconning of Uncle Ben's death. It made Peter's first act as Spider-Man (apprehending his uncle's killer) completely pointless. Yes, the guy was responsible, but not the actual killer, so placing Sandman as the killer completely negates that scene from the first Spider-Man.

The birth of Sandman scene was amazing, though.
My basic attitude is that if Marvel gets Spider-Man and The X-men back they should consider doing "Secret Wars". To be honest the whole problem with doing Venom is that he was written into the comics in a very strange way, and was a bit of a surprise. That is to say during "Secret Wars" Spider-Man gets his costume ripped and uses a machine in the base The Beyonder gave the heroes to repair it. The costume the machine creates for him is a black one which enhances his powers. He doesn't really figure out what it is until he gets back to earth. Given that The Beyonder created the "Warworld" where Secret Wars took place from pieces all over the multiverse the thing is that Venom could have been from pretty much anywhere, or anywhen, perhaps even created by the machine itself.

Unlike Bob I think Venom is okay, and honestly when you consider it's origins and how it was pretty much "born" symbiotically attached to Spider Man, it's obsession with him is obvious. Also as he's learned more about the world, watching Venom grow and adapt has been interesting, as despite his predatory nature he's taken several turns as an anti-hero over the years, going so far as to try and take out it's own "children" due to the threat they pose to humanity.

I don't know if it ever came up in the comics, but I've kind of felt that finding what world Venom was from originally, or the origin of the technology that made it into a costume could be interesting, since everything in that world was supposed to have come from somewhere.

I also think that in general "Secret Wars" was one of Marvels better events/crossovers, and while very old (and from a time when Marvel was in a different state) on a lot of levels I liked it better than the whole "Infinity Gauntlet" thing, which ultimately seemed to use the same schtick for the finale (bad guy gets infinite power, winds up unable to handle it and defeats himself). Of course it was a VERY simplistic set up and storyline as well, which was part of the appeal and probably also why it would work for a movie even if people would criticize it for being really shallow as a result. Still if they were going to do a cinematic Spider-Man in the marvel continuity, they could introduce him in his own film, cross him over into Secret Wars, and then do the whole Venom story arc as his next movie.

I'll also say that I thought Brock wasn't bad, and to be honest he's always been the best Venom, a guy you start out thinking would be really bad, but actually isn't, though he does utterly hate Peter Parker. It's also ironic that the whole reason he has powers is specifically that the symbiote empowering him is obsessed with/has a love on for, the guy Brock most hates, even if the Symbiote is in a jilted rage.
 

Lupine

New member
Apr 26, 2014
112
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
Vivi22 said:
Kumagawa Misogi said:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.
You know, I don't agree with Bob on much, but if there's one thing I can get behind him on it's that Spider-Man 3 isn't as bad as people thought it was, and that Venom was mildly interesting one time when he first appeared in comics. Every appearance after that he's been a boring, one dimensional character that Marvel can never seem to decide whether he should be a villain or a hero, all the while not realizing that the only thing that ever made him interesting was his stalker-esque original portrayal. Not by being a "dark and edgey," version of Spider-Man.
I have never read the Spiderman comic were Venom first appears till recently. I knew Venom first from the 90's cartoon that was fantastic, the 90's may have sucked for comics but their cartoons were awesome.

And that's why I was really disappointed with Venom in Spiderman 3 in the cartoon's Peter Parker is terrified of Venom, an opponent who his spider-sense does not work against, an opponent who knows who he is, who knows who his loved ones are. The film did not convey that, did not have time to convey that.

As to the sand-man I found his motivation and character arc cliché and the portrayal dull rather than threatening.

For a film with 3 villain's only the first fights against both the 2nd GG and the sand-man were okay, the 2nd fight against the sand-man just happened out of nowhere and the rest of the long film was rather empty and either dry or cringe worthy.
I feel that the movie sort of misses the point. It missed the point not of what Peter Parker thinks is cool or dark and gritty as anti-heroes go, but rather it misses the point of what The Symbiote and by extension Venom is.

The point of Venom isn't "evil spider-man", the point of Venom is "the evil inside of spider-man". Peter Parker is a hero, but he didn't actually decide to be a hero. Peter Parker's guilt toward his Uncle's death is what finally drives him toward the heroic path and while I don't think that makes him any less heroic, it is something to realize and remember.

Peter Parker didn't want to be a hero, he wanted to make money, gain fame, and woo women. His guilt forces him away from chasing after these things, but Venom is just the reason to bring all of this back to the spotlight. The Symbiote brings out the worst in its host. You don't turn into a monster, it brings out the monster already lurking inside you.

Peter shouldn't be trying to be cool, he should be violent, volatile, and completely blind to what he is and what he's doing. Anti-villain is not where the symbiote leads and it would have been interesting to see Peter hit rock bottom and then dig himself out to pull the pieces of his life back together. And just as that's happening, boom frightening stalker Venom with his superior physical presence, intimate knowledge, lack of spider sense triggering, and basic freakishness. I realize Raimi really didn't want to do Venom and the studio forced it on him, but lemons and lemonade honestly. If I couldn't make the movie I wanted I'd have made the stuff shoveled on me as great as I could manage.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,020
49
53
Country
USA
Lupine said:
Maybe, but I personally greatly prefer Venom's original portrayal as a basically good but lonely creature that merely wanted to bond with others especially Peter to survive and for company and only became a villain due to a combination of being rejected and bonding with the absolute worst guy possible at the worst possible time rather than the retcon that he was pretty much Satan and addiction personified as a black goo from the very beginning. I actually like the Symbiotes as both heroes and villains more than most Marvel characters due to how deep and complex they tend to be, but Venom seems to be the weak link in that regard.
 
Feb 28, 2008
689
0
0
No surprise that this comes so close after lambasting Amazing Spiderman 2. I think the film appears much more fondly in comparison to what Bob judges was about to happen when they rebooted the franchise. For myself, I think that the third film was completely disjointed, with some scenes that were just plain awkward and bizarre, and which suffer from the same villain bloat that the latest film is criticised for. I much, much preferred Amazing Spiderman 1; it was a far more coherent and well-told origin story, and better than all but the second Spiderman of the first trilogy.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,742
370
88
Country
USA
Rachith Sridhar said:
I don't hate spiderman 3 for the emo crap or the random dance sequence. I hate it coz it doesn't make sense to me.
I actually like the emo stuff a lot, especially emo parker vs. GG Jr. out of costume. The dance part was terrific.

But no, it made little sense. He appears to "forgive" Sandman because he can't kick his butt. In the comicbook, BTW: He beats Sandman with a vacuum cleaner.

Sandman was not credible at the end. Why terrorize the city and an innocent girl? The man we are shown wouldn't do that.

The most uncomfortable part for me is the beginning, when Parker isn't a nerd: he's a jerk.

All that isn't enough to put me off the movie entirely. It was better than the Thor movies, better than the Amazing Spiderman, better than the Hulk movies, at least as good as Iron Man 2.

Deserves some respect.
 

Ghadente

White Rabbit
Mar 21, 2009
537
0
0
I'd take the original 3 spidey movies over these new ones any day, and agree that Toby is way better choice for spider-man. Is there someone out there better? maybe. We could only wonder who Marvel would cast.
As for the movie spider-man 3, I was disappointed sure, but I wouldn't say its a bad movie. Too cluttered and ithink the casting for Venom was the worst. Eddie Brock is suppose to be the opposite of Parker, the Jock type. At least that's what i remember. That is why he makes a great nemesis for the dorky peter. Topher is decent and all but makes for a poor Vemon, both in and out of the Symbiote; Smaller and less frightening.
 

KikReask

New member
Mar 25, 2014
14
0
0
Meh, like I said, I was never a fan of Spider-Man and I really didn't like any entry in the original trilogy. But I hated this one the most. Oh sure it had good action and a good cast with the exception of Maguire, but so did the Star Wars prequels. I thought the first two films were embarrassing to watch with someone else, but the third movie was just overall embarrassing. Hell I thought the first Amazing Spider-Man film was far less embarrassing to watch, but still a little bit embarrassing. And while I may not be a fan of Spider-Man, I still loved the idea behind Venom, and they completely ruined him in this movie, and while I'm not a fan of the rebooted series at all, I am surprisingly hoping the Venom movie doesn't suck.

Still don't like Spider-Man 3, or any Spider-Man movie regardless. Give me The Dark Knight Rises anyday. At least it has an intimidating villain.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates the Amazing Spider-Man because it is a big company's (Sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Are you unaware that he said in Tuesday's video what he considers the difference to be, or are you just ignoring as irrelevant? If the latter, then why?
Silverspetz said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates Amazing Spider-man because it is a big company (sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Did you somehow miss the numerous times Bob has explained the difference between Sony and Disney in this regard? One company uses gimmicks and continuity wisely while focusing on delivering a solid stand-alone movie FIRST. The other one constantly blunders in the storytelling department because they are more interested in throwing in the gimmicks and callbacks to hook comic-book fans, and it is detrimental to their movie.

See this is where that little thing called "explaining" comes in, and it didn't take 20 paragraphs either.
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me.
I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and TDKR work as movies, TASM doesn't" but I still think it's bullshit. Maybe I'm just crazy but I hold them all to the same standards, I can say they're all bad movies; but some I enjoy others I don't.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me. I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and the Dark Knight Returns work as movies, but the Amazing Spider-Man doesn't," but I still think it's bullshit.
Okay, why do you think it's bullshit? Please demonstrate where you think Mr. Chipman's claims about the Amazing Spider-Man 2's plot, characters, and pacing are incorrect, and why you think so.

Lovely Mixture said:
Maybe I'm just crazy, but I hold them all to the same standards.
Are you claiming Mr. Chipman doesn't? If so, what is your basis for saying so? Please cite examples of his own words and the standards he has claimed to judge the movies by.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me. I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and the Dark Knight Returns work as movies, but the Amazing Spider-Man doesn't," but I still think it's bullshit.
Okay, why do you think it's bullshit? Please demonstrate where you think Mr. Chipman's claims about the Amazing Spider-Man 2's plot, characters, and pacing are incorrect, and why you think so.
Talking about the first one.
I didn't say he was incorrect. I'm saying his his justification for his hatred for the movvie is ultimately fruitless because the same problems apply to other superhero movies he has reviewed. He's allowed to enjoy/not-enjoy whatever he wants, I'm just critical of self-righteous review style.


JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
Maybe I'm just crazy, but I hold them all to the same standards.
Are you claiming Mr. Chipman doesn't? If so, what is your basis for saying so? Please cite examples of his own words and the standards he has claimed to judge the movies by.
I didn't mean to claim that, I have no way of telling if that's the case. I do think it's hypocritical of him to point out plot errors/conveniences in certain movies that he hates (TASM) and ignore them for movies that he thinks are great (The Avengers).

tl;dr I don't agree with how he holds standards, but I can't say he's wrong.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
Talking about the first one.
That is an error on my part. I apologize. Thank you for correcting it.

Lovely Mixture said:
I'm saying his his justification for his hatred for the movie is ultimately fruitless because the same problems apply to other superhero movies he has reviewed.
That's fine. I'm just asking you to tell me which specific problems you're talking about and what specific other movies he's given positive reviews to have them.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
Talking about the first one.
That is an error on my part. I apologize. Thank you for correcting it.

Lovely Mixture said:
I'm saying his his justification for his hatred for the movie is ultimately fruitless because the same problems apply to other superhero movies he has reviewed.
That's fine. I'm just asking you to tell me which specific problems you're talking about and what specific other movies he's given positive reviews to have them.
Ok.
In in his TASM review he's critical of the fact that Gwyn Stacy is Dr. Connors assistant, he cites this as plot convenience. It is, fine, I agree.

He cites this as a reason the movie is bad and why he didn't like it.

In his Avengers review he makes no comment on how
1. The subplot with SHIELD's weapons is abandoned
2. No is suspicious at all that Loki doesn't try to escape while Thor, Tony, and Cap are all fighting.
3. Nick Fury makes his rousing speech in front of two of the Avengers
4. Bruce manages to control his rage somehow by the end of the movie with no explanation other than this one liner.
 

Silverspetz

New member
Aug 19, 2011
152
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
JimB said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates the Amazing Spider-Man because it is a big company's (Sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Are you unaware that he said in Tuesday's video what he considers the difference to be, or are you just ignoring as irrelevant? If the latter, then why?
Silverspetz said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates Amazing Spider-man because it is a big company (sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Did you somehow miss the numerous times Bob has explained the difference between Sony and Disney in this regard? One company uses gimmicks and continuity wisely while focusing on delivering a solid stand-alone movie FIRST. The other one constantly blunders in the storytelling department because they are more interested in throwing in the gimmicks and callbacks to hook comic-book fans, and it is detrimental to their movie.

See this is where that little thing called "explaining" comes in, and it didn't take 20 paragraphs either.
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me.
I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and TDKR work as movies, TASM doesn't" but I still think it's bullshit. Maybe I'm just crazy but I hold them all to the same standards, I can say they're all bad movies; but some I enjoy others I don't.
Ok, so WHY do you think their explanation is bullshit? Do you have some other conclusion about how these Movies make sense from a narrative or character perspective, or how their constant dropping of plotpoints that they clearly don't intend to resolve until later Movies isn't detramental to the story being told right now? Bob IS holding these two companies to the same standard because he is judging them both against the same criteria to see how well they succeed at accomplishing the end goal.

EDIT: Just saw your post on the various plot-conveniences in The Avengers and I agree with JimB. Two of those Points were perfectly resolved in the Movie, the third isn't really relevant to a discussion about plot-conveniences, and the forth could have been explained better in the Movie but isn't really a plot-hole or inconsistency for those who have paid attention.

Furthermore, none of those things are anywhere Close to the kind of sub-plots that get dropped in ASM/ASM2 for the sake of setting up future subplots.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
In his Avengers review he makes no comment on how:

1. The subplot with SHIELD's weapons is abandoned.
Abandoned how? The only device that provides fuel for the weapons is taken to another planet at the end of the movie. What else do you think needed to be said about it?

Lovely Mixture said:
2. No is suspicious at all that Loki doesn't try to escape while Thor, Tony, and Cap are all fighting.
Nick Fury is. He explicitly says, "Why do I get the feeling [Loki] is the only person on this boat who wants to be here?" If the three superheroes don't think of it, given that they're all three riding high on testosterone and mistrust for one another, I think it makes sense.

Lovely Mixture said:
3. Nick Fury makes his rousing speech in front of two of the Avengers.
Uh...I'm sorry, I don't get it. What does this have to do with the Amazing Spider-Man or plot convenience?

Lovely Mixture said:
4. Bruce manages to control his rage somehow by the end of the movie with no explanation other than this one liner.
It's explained in the Edward Norton movie, the one whose title I actually kind of forget. The Hulk is only uncontrollable when Banner fights the release process. As Banner hypothesizes aloud in the previous movie before jumping out of the helicopter, and as seems to be proven by his behavior protecting the humans atop the roof from the fire and the way he smiles at the movie's end prior to a transformation, the Hulk can be controlled to a degree if he's invoked deliberately rather than fought against. I'll grant that the Avengers could have taken a moment to go over that, since Norton's movie is the one the audience is least likely to have seen prior to the Avengers and the point might be lost, but I can't condone calling it a plot convenience.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,020
49
53
Country
USA
Lovely Mixture said:
This is typical of Bob. If he decides he doesn't like something, he'll rage about it's problems to an excessive degree, most all of which are very nitpicky while ignoring any good points it might have. On the other hand, if he does like something he'll sing it's praises while dismissing any flaws it has, even if it's filled to the brim with the very same flaws he'd whine about forever with a movie he hates.
 

Crimsonmonkeywar

New member
Oct 27, 2013
120
0
0
I guess i can take Bob's review a bit more serious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJUk8ZHckxo

the only opinion i trust. All that said, I still am not a fan of the Rami films and especially SM3
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
OK, I've been saving this comment/rant all weekend, Mostly because I have a job that demands most of my free time these days. Plus, I wanted to think what I have to say rather than post a piss-off rant and get in trouble over it.

I will agree with MovieBob mostly on his view of Spider-Man 3.

Is it a flawed movie? Yes.

Is the movie a victim of Sony and Avi Arad's inept actions to make more money? Yes.

Was Venom and Gwen Stacy needlessly shoehorned into a movie that didn't need them at all? Yes.

Was the retcon of Uncle Ben's death the dumbest thing to do with this movie?! FUCK YES!

That said, there are good qualities in this movie and one point that the Internet likes to *****/parrot about but we'll get to that later.

First off, unless someone else comes along to knock it out of the park, J.K. Simmons will always be THE definitive J. Jonah Jameson in my book. The same can be said for Rosemary Harris' rendition of Aunt May (sorry, Sally Field). James Franco does a good job with his role as Harry Osborn crossing over into the dark side (although, the amnesia part and his "New Goblin" look sucked royally but that's because of too many cooks in the kitchen). Despite Captain Stacy and his daughter Gwen being shoehorned into the movie, James Cromwell and Bryce Dallas Howard did their best with what they're given. Topher Grace's version of Eddie Brock has a lot more depth to his comic book counterpart. Although, the same can be said for the animated version from {i]Spectacular Spider-Man[/i]. Speaking of villain's that got a better rendition from their comic book version, Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/Sandman was a great character. I've always had some issues with the Sandman in the comics, mostly because he was a just thug given superpowers (but I did like his brief stint as a former criminal trying to become a hero until that got stupidly retconned out). But Church's Sandman has a reason for what he has to do (I.E. wanting a better life for his daughter) and being blessed/cursed with his new abilities adds more complexity to his criminal life.

Having said that, I'm not too certain if Sandman and the Vulture would have been the right choice for part 3. Personally, I would have liked Spider-Man 3 to focus on Harry Osborn's slow turn into the new Green Goblin and the rise of the Hobgoblin. Here are my reasons why. First, Harry mentally wrestling with the idea of avenging his father by killing the only friend he's ever known would be interesting to see. It would have kept the audience guessing on whether or not he would succumb to this legacy of evil or break the cycle of madness. Second, I've always liked the Hobgoblin more than the Green Goblin but that's just my personal preference. The Hobgoblin's motives were more criminally methodical than Norman Osborn's lab accident induced insanity to become the ruler of the world. Rather than be obsessed with Spider-Man, he would turn his attentions to taking over the criminal underworld of NYC. Also, not only would Peter be in the dark about this new goblin's identity (as would the audience until the last portion of the movie) but he would have to worry on whether or not this goblin knows his secret identity after discovering one of Osborn's hidden Goblin lairs (that was part of his origin story in the comics). It would lead to a dramatic finale on the two goblins fighting it out with Spider-Man in the middle, wondering if he has an ally in this battle or another enemy he must defeat. And, just to be clear, I would like to see more closer renditions of the Green Goblin and Hobgoblin for the actors as oppose to that X-Games outfit Franco got stuck with. Finally, as a selling point, I would like to see a movie version of this cover...



Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let's get to the part that everyone keeps harping on about: Toby Maguire's rendition of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Personally, I like Maguire's take on Peter Parker. He plays the role of a social outcast tossed into the chaotic life of a superhero perfectly. He's suppose to be an unlucky geek because, as Bob pointed out, that is what Peter Parker was like in the silver age comics, which was the director's intention for these movies. Yes, he's matured and gotten better with the opposite sex in the comics, but he is still the loveable loser he was in the past. He is plagued with doubts and past failures to live up to his responsibility (there have been some recent deaths aside from Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacy in the comics). He struggles to make ends meet (no big difference from anyone else suffering from the recession but he was getting by before that). Even when things are coming up roses for him, it usually turns sour somewhere down the road. He's Marvel's answer to Charlie Brown. One of the reason's I'm not on board with the Amazing Spider-Man movies is that Andrew Garfield is miscast for the role of Peter Parker. Hes too much of a pretty boy, appearance wise. He might work if he was portraying college era Peter Parker but Sony and Mark Webb went in the wrong direction with their Amazing Spider-Man movies.

I'd like to go on with my theory on why the Internet has a raging mad-on for Raimi's Spider-Man but this comment post is getting way too long and I'm gonna save that topic for later.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
1. The subplot with SHIELD's weapons is abandoned.
Abandoned how? The only device that provides fuel for the weapons is taken to another planet at the end of the movie. What else do you think needed to be said about it?
[/quote]

Shield is making weapons using the tesseract, Cap and Tony find this questionable.....then they forget about it.


JimB said:
Nick Fury is. He explicitly says, "Why do I get the feeling [Loki] is the only person on this boat who wants to be here?" If the three superheroes don't think of it, given that they're all three riding high on testosterone and mistrust for one another, I think it makes sense.
How convenient for Loki.

JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
3. Nick Fury makes his rousing speech in front of two of the Avengers.
Uh...I'm sorry, I don't get it. What does this have to do with the Amazing Spider-Man or plot convenience?
Fury lies to Tony and Cap about Colson having the cards in his pocket. This only helps Cap and Tony resolve their differences. Thor and Bruce are no present, yet this is referenced as the push they needed.

Lovely Mixture said:
4. Bruce manages to control his rage somehow by the end of the movie with no explanation other than this one liner.
It's explained in the Edward Norton movie, the one whose title I actually kind of forget. The Hulk is only uncontrollable when Banner fights the release process. As Banner hypothesizes aloud in the previous movie before jumping out of the helicopter, and as seems to be proven by his behavior protecting the humans atop the roof from the fire and the way he smiles at the movie's end prior to a transformation, the Hulk can be controlled to a degree if he's invoked deliberately rather than fought against. I'll grant that the Avengers could have taken a moment to go over that, since Norton's movie is the one the audience is least likely to have seen prior to the Avengers and the point might be lost, but I can't condone calling it a plot convenience.[/quote]

Then why was it presented as an issue in the movie as a first place?
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
SHIELD is making weapons using the Tesseract, Cap and Tony find this questionable...then they forget about it.
They find out about it two minutes before the Helicarrier explodes, Thor and the Hulk disappear, Loki escapes, and Coulson dies; then an alien apocalypse happens. I'm not sure which part of that the characters ought to have ignored in favor of yelling at Nick Fury about making weapons whose bullets Thor takes off-planet at the end of the movie anyway.

Lovely Mixture said:
How convenient for Loki.
He's a god of lies and trickery. That said, I kind of agree with you that someone ought to have asked himself a question somewhere in there; I just think it makes sense that the only person who did so is the person who was far removed from the situation and had no stake in a pissing contest with anyone present at the scene.

Lovely Mixture said:
Fury lies to Tony and Cap about Coulson having the cards in his pocket. This only helps Cap and Tony resolve their differences. Thor and Bruce are no present, yet this is referenced as the push they needed.
A combat situation generally resolves differences in people who want to live and need help doing so. You're right about Thor, though. I have no fucking idea how he figured out what was going on or where he needed to be. Hulk I'll excuse, since Banner landed in New York; he just needed to look up at the hole in the sky and keep going. Thor, though...I got nothing.

Lovely Mixture said:
Then why was it presented as an issue in the movie as a first place?
The Hulk can be aimed. He can be partially controlled. That's as far as it goes. He's still a titanic force of destruction, capable of destroying cities without much effort, of killing entire battalions without taking a wound in turn, and of petty handily defeating a god in a brawl (not that Banner knew that one before it happened, but aren't the other two bad enough?). Further, Banner enters a fugue when he transforms and can't remember what happened afterward. Don't you think it's an unconscionable risk to shut off your brain, turn yourself into a monster with the destructive capability of a nuclear missile with no guidance chip, and hope the only people you hurt and kill are the ones who deserve it? Banner has taken that risk three times: once, when a monster every bit as bad as the Hulk was killing Harlem; once, when the world was about to end from an alien invasion; and once at the end of the movie starring Edward Norton. We don't know what happened that third time, but whatever it was, it was bad enough that it culminated in him trying to commit suicide before fleeing to Calcutta (that it went so badly is how we know the Hulk can only be partially controlled rather than totally).
 

ninjaRiv

New member
Aug 25, 2010
986
0
0
I never understood why anyone likes any of these movies. I think someone once said it's because they're campy, like the 60s Spider-Man? I don't get how that's a good thing. But this explanation doesn't explain much, anyway.

Never understood why anyone thinks Toby Maguire is a good Spider-Man. Or Peter Parker, for that matter. He comes off as terribly fucking creepy and every "joke" as Spider-Man is so unfunny it actually hurts.

I also don't understand Bob's hatred for the newer movies. They're not bad... In fact, I'd call them "flawed but good." Kind of find it weird that he defends this pile of shit but not ASM...

I dunno, I just don't know why anybody likes Raimi's Spider-Man movies.
 

Silverspetz

New member
Aug 19, 2011
152
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
Shield is making weapons using the tesseract, Cap and Tony find this questionable.....then they forget about it.
If by "forget about it" you mean: Confront him about it, temporarily put it aside in the face of imminent danger and great personal loss, and then lets it go since A) Fury tells them that making weapons was the backup plan to the Avengers Initiative and B) Said backup plan goes down the drain when Thor takes the Tesseract away. That isn't dropping a plotpoint, it is RESOLVING it.


Lovely Mixture said:
How convenient for Loki.
Not really, what IS convenient for him is that no matter what the Avengers may think of his apparent confidence, they can't really do anything BUT play into his hands since they can neither kill him outright (because they still need the Tesseract + Thor probably wouldn't let them) nor let him go. They HAD to take him into custody no matter what and Loki knew that from the beginning. It's called "having a plan".

Also, Cap was also questioning how easy it was to get Loki when they were on the plane.

Lovely Mixture said:
Fury lies to Tony and Cap about Colson having the cards in his pocket. This only helps Cap and Tony resolve their differences. Thor and Bruce are no present, yet this is referenced as the push they needed.
Since it got the two most confrontational and bickering members of the group to work together, I'd say it WAS the push they needed even if only two of them heard it, since they were the ones who needed it most. If you mean this as a plot hole for why all the Avengers were working together in NY, then I would like to point out that extreme circumstances takes to make people put aside their differences.

Lovely Mixture said:
Then why was it presented as an issue in the movie as a first place?
Because no matter whose side he is on the Hulk is still dangerous, as became apparent on the Hellicarrier. He is a living nuclear bomb that tends to pick his friends and enemies depending on who or what was pissing him off at the time.
 

nayrbarr

New member
Aug 11, 2010
77
0
0
That you! I've been saying exactly that about the "douch-bag Parker" part of that film for years, glad to hear that you agree.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
So I haven't spotted it yet and been through most of the thread. Also no-one will probably read this but still, I'm going to go for it and try to answer.


Why is Venom an interesting Villain ?


unfortunately because of this film it never really got to show Venom as Venom.
initially it's just showcasing Peter's dark side. However later it actually serves as a metaphor for Peter's ultimate dilemma of having a real life and being a superhero. The symbiote is initially a representation of Peter fighting to have a normal life and be Spiderman. The moment the suit refuses to let him take it off (and this happened in other media too) has Peter questioning if being Spiderman permanently is a good thing, only for him to then actively fight it because of knowing what him vanishing would do to his friends and family.
Venom initially is Peter Parker fighting to balance real life and being a superhero.

After removing the suit and it attaching to Eddie Brock Venom as a villain is Spiderman's better. It's only later in the stories that this really comes across hence the film couldn't do it. Venom knows everything about Spiderman and can replicate it but better. In some Storied Venom actually gloats that he has made his own webbing and it's far stronger than Spiderman, Venom is stronger than Spiderman and can even manipulate Spidermans Spider sense. Then you throw in Eddie Brock who is like Peter Parker being a photographer etc.

What Venom becomes is another Photographer in a suit who is power wise Spiderman's superior. Note I said Spiderman's Superior. The difference is it is not the Spiderman persona that allows Peter Parker to win vs venom, its Peter Parker himself being out to out think and outwit Venom. Venom exists as a Villain to essentially allow Peter Parker to be a winner because of his brains rather than his Powers. It really is a reason to be able to play the brains over brawn story in a Super Hero comic and a way to have a villain that is one up on Spiderman.
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
Spiderman 3 to me was the one that showed off what was worst about Raimi's trilogy - in how Venom was set up.

Brock's actions showed extreme issues with his ethics as a journalist, and would be an instant firing offence in any newsroom outside of the Murdoch empire for a reason.

Trying to make his motivations sympathetic doesn't work - because they're not sympathetic motivations. The guy was fired because he got caught plagiarising a photo in order to fake a news story.

He is supposed to be sympathetic as a character born of Peter's 'wrongdoing' under the influence of the symbiote, but Peter didn't actually do anything wrong, Brock is just an unethical dick.

The way the whole story is framed thus ends up feeling like bullshit.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
scorptatious said:
Meh. I still prefer the ASM movies to Spiderman 3. ASM 2 I feel slightly edges out 3 because it had Emma Stone in it. And yes, I'm shallow, what of it?

I do agree that Toby Maguire was a better Peter Parker. Still, I kinda like the socially awkward vibe Garfield gives Peter.

I will agree though that the original two Spiderman movies were great.
piscian said:
Agreed on all points. That's the problem - Spider-man 3 is literally 3 movies crammed into one. Thomas hayden and the sandman story AMAZING. So good. You could actually cut out most of the movie and have a good short film about Sandman. The Goblin storyline if it was fleshed out was a great movie on it's own. Unfortunately I have to agree with Bob for informational and nostalgia purposes I went back and reread or wiki'd the whole venom backstory and maximum carnage nonsense. It's all garbage it really is. Venom as a concept is neat but no writer to this date has been able to add any depth to venom or eddie brock. YOu will never see a section of marvel knights or selfcontained Graphic novel about venom. There's just nothing to say.
Didn't Venom get his own short comic series? Correct me if I'm wrong.
plenty of them. They had a phenomenal idea with recently giving the symbiote to flash thompson and having him use it as a government black ops agent since he was a decorated soldier but lost his legs. Unfortunately though the series is still ongoing they're just kind of kicking the can down the road with it. Other than the first few issues (its on issue 30 something) nothing interesting has been done. I stopped reading it a long time ago.

Venom is just a victim of poor writing. the concept is cool.
 

Tony Murlin

New member
Sep 15, 2010
10
0
0
Spoilers (maybe?).

Honestly, after having seen the Amazing Spider-Man 2, I have to say that it's up there as one of the best Spider-Man films yet made. Individuals on this thread mentioned that the film is "disjointed," but I don't see where they're getting that from. The plot flowed just fine for my tastes. That's not to say the film doesn't have flaws, but the more I'm seeing of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man, the more I'm liking him more than Toby Maquire's. I'm also not understanding the whole "twilight" comparison... aside from being skinny, Garfield's not an incredibly attractive person ('bout on par with Maguire in my eyes). Is it the hair? 'Cause if it is, then David Tennant was a shitty Doctor Who Twilight-wannabe too. And Smith... but I digress.

Maguire made an interesting 60's Era Spider-Man (although he wasn't actually "Spider-Man", rather than "Generic Superhero with Vaguely Spider-like Powers")that gelled quite well with Post-9/11 America. But the Raimi movies were not flawless masterpieces (barring the incredibly shitty third film). For every excellent decision (casting J.K. Simmons as J.J. Jameson, Thomas Haden Church as Sandman, and Alfred Molina as Dr. Otto Octavius... flawless), the Raimi series makes several terrible, abominable sins (the first film's handling of the Green Goblin, absolutely everything having to do with Harry Osborne (casting and plot), casting a charisma-black hole like Kirsten Dunst, etc.). There is also the fact that, unlike ASM's Gwen Stacey, SM's Mary Jane Watson is not a *person*, she's a thing to be lusted after by Raimi's "hopeless loser" version of Peter Parker. She contributes nothing to the plot but complications, she exists to do *nothing* but "be protected" or "be fought over like a possession." Hell, the entire breakup subplot in SM3 could have been avoided if she was written like a human being and not like a self-centered child. One sentence ("Peter, I got fired from the play, so could you please stop being a douche for a minute?") could have ended that whole thing... but no, it had to be "Smallvilled" out (just like the first two films).

The issue with the Raimi films is that, while they are technically competent, they are nothing more than a series of cool moments and images chained together by convenient plot points and a (frankly mystifying yet) sub-par love story. Willem Dafoe was *excellent* as Norman Osborne, but he was *terrible* as the Green Goblin. This is mostly due to the fact that the Green Goblin is a super-bad-terri-suck-tastic villain *in general*. The combined acting talents of Dafoe, Franco, and Dehaan cannot save this pathetic villain concept from sucking. Personally speaking, if the series could just keep the Osbornes as the villains and just stop with the Green Goblin nonsense altogether, the Spider-Man film series would be better off for it. There's also the fact that James Franco just didn't work in the SM films: Harry Osborne's depiction is bland, there is absolutely no reason he should be friends with Peter Parker or be going to public school (if they kick him out of Military School, *then* I see someone as rich as Norman sending his kid to, ugh, Public School), and SM3's Amnesia plotline was idiotic and (pardon the pun) forgettable.

Now, regarding Emo-Peter: it should never have happened. Ever. Not even as a joke. Why is Peter even *trying* to be cool, I mean *at all*? All the pointing, dancing, and douche-like behavior was just a pointless time-filler and contrived plot gateway to the Jazz Club fight. It wasn't necessary and all it did was add a "what the hell did I just watch" moment. The reason I hate SM3 is not because of Topher Grace's portrayal of Brock/Venom (hell, he was the only one actually excited about the film during the press rounds), but because this film focused far too much on the SM series' weakest point (the love triangle) and succeeded in making Peter Parker into someone as fundamentally loathsome as Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane. Granted, Peter was already skirting the line of being a terrible person in SM2 when he was actively trying to break up MJ's relationship and, basically, lying to her and playing with her emotions (but, it's okay... she leaves her Fiance at the alter for him. You know, because it's funny and romantic... I guess). So, not only is Raimi's Peter Parker a creepy "nice guy" stalker with a myopic fixation on one single human being, now he's a "drug addict" and a manipulative asshole. Well, at least MJ managed to sneak a note to Peter on the bridge after Harry Osborne regained his memories and, together, they stopped his villainy. Oh, wait. No, she didn't. Because she'd rather tear his heart out and keep him in the dark than actually try to solve the problem together (much like Peter kept doing to her, you know, because he *loves* her so goddamn much). I sure Love to see that Smallville legacy firmly entrenched in the SM films. Love it.

I will agree on one point, however: I really, really like the Sandman's "becoming" scene. I dig it, hardcore.

Now, onto the ASM Films. Are they a blatant cash grab on Sony's part? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Do they ditch the 60's Spider-Man in favor of one more in line with Ultimate Spider-Man? Yep, and I am glad they did. I'm tired of Peter Parker being how old former-athlete business executives think nerds actually are and am interested in the personal growth of a nerdy-looking, socially awkward dude with neuroses similar to my own. Also, Gwen Stacey (as portrayed by Emma Stone) as a character and love interest is just. plain. better. period. She has charisma for *days*, chemistry with Garfield (one would hope), and is capable of emoting onscreen without looking constipated (or "Pulling a Dunst").

Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborne makes more sense in his connections to Peter Parker because they're both freaky looking weirdos whose Dads work together. His motivations for hating Spider-Man, while just as strong as Franco's Osborne, are far more realistically portrayed. And, finally, while I hate the Green Goblin in this movie too, his transformation scene was friggin' boss and I like how they made the suit important(ish). He was *way* underused in the third act (they could have shaved some minutes from the Electro fight and from some of the slower scenes to enhance the GG's role in the film), which is fine because the GG sucks as a villain/character/concept but ultimately harms the movie due to his rather sudden appearance and disappearance.

Jamie Foxx is *terrible* as Max Dillon. His portrayal is hokey to the point of being Raimi-level Camp. However, once he becomes Electro, Foxx tones it down and becomes a rather respectable antagonist. He is Peter Parker if Peter internalized his anger and powerlessness, only to unleash it all once he gained actual power. He still wants to help people, to be wanted and adored, to feel as though he has control... but his rage is just too strong (and, iirc, they hint that some of that "Lizard" insanity is affecting him as well). His whole interaction with Osborne in Ravencroft was great and demonstrated all this rather well (although Dr. Kafka and Ravencroft is pretty campy as well).

The fact is, all these movies (DC, MCU, ASM, SM, X-Men, etc.) suck balls as far as "film" is concerned. They're hundred million dollar blockbuster films that take shortcuts where plot development is concerned, confuse "shock and awe" for "storytelling," and they have trouble with consistency in just about every way, shape, and form. But you know what? I'm not so freakishly myopic or superlatively thin skinned that I go off on a rant each and every time someone mentions the original Raimi films. The sheer fact that this film "broke" Moviebob so much that he had to waste content on telling us why "we were wrong about Spider-Man 3" not only reeks of self-important hyperbole but of someone struggling to find something, anything, to fill time. So, this is goodbye, Moviebob. I'm done. As far as I'm concerned, I anticipate your opinion on film and geek culture in the same manner as I anticipate medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.

Love, Peace, and Chicken Grease,
The Mighty Grendel
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
Say what you will about his Spidey movies yay or nay. Army of Darkness is now and forever Sam Raimi's greatest achievement.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I liked Spider Man 3. Especially the part when he walks down the street to "get up and drive that funky soul".
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Wait, Bob mentions several of the things that make the film bad. The disjointedness, the poorly combined villains, the unnecessary love triangle. He basically laid out the reasons we think the game is bad but doesn't resolve them. How does this make us wrong? He doesn't present the good side of things. The reason the movie wasn't bad. He just seems to be reviewing the movie generally.

Interestingly enough I didn't bat an eye at Sandman being the murderer. In fact, I'd say it was one of the best parts of the movie and the last scene with the sandman was a significant payoff for the retcon.

That Peter is a dweeb does not justify a musical/dance scene. You can explain the "why" of it, but not justify that it was cleared.

The movie had a lot of promises and ultimately fell short. Though, I guess Bob's saying just that, it wasn't terrible. Some parts were good, some were mistakes. I don't regret having seen it I just don't remember it fondly. Perhaps just the sandman's plot and bits of the venom when it wasn't near spiderman. Heck, that guy would have made an interesting carnage too. But the goofy scenes and the cringing dialogue with Peter infected by it was just cringeworthy.

Completely agree that the whole green goblin bit was really squeezed in. Also, I found his costume ridiculous. Not sinister and not cool. Like what an evil kid genius crops up in his garage before growing up to join the big league. Not a billionaire with access to all of his father's equipment.

The only person that is wrong here is the guy or gal that just rehash what anyone else said about it. The people who either didn't see the movie or just couldn't be bothered to form their own opinion about it. But I remember sitting there in the theater during the dance scene and looking at around the theater to see if other people were also confused that it was taking place in this kind of movie. Other people looked my way and we seemed to be in silent agreement. I am not wrong about Spider-man 3. I've made a rational albeit subjective decision that the movie could have been a lot better with a different direction and more streamlined plot. Heck, a smaller budget may have even helped them.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
That scene is Spider-man 3 where Peter tried to be cool does make more sense if Peter has no idea how to act cool. Though it needed a voice over explaining why Peter started acting this way.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
uanime5 said:
That scene in Spider-Man 3 where Peter tried to be cool does make more sense if Peter has no idea how to act cool. Though it needed a voice over explaining why Peter started acting this way.
Not sure how fair that is. After all, we had two and a half movies up to that point to establish that Peter is just not cool. It's kind of on us if we haven't figured it out by now.
 

katsabas

New member
Apr 23, 2008
1,515
0
0
I cannot see what Bob sees in Spider-Man 3 and the whole 'Pete does the dance cause he thinks it's cool' thing. The black suit is supposed to corrupt you MORALLY. I mean, in the Spectacular series, while under the influence, Spidey went and asked for a job from fucking Tombstone ! An actual mobster and the then Kingpin !

He brushed off his friends in the worst way possible and was okay with the symbiote taking over his work while he was sleeping, not caring whether during his fight with the sinister six someone got hurt or worse ! The suit made him choose the easy way every time he came at a crossroads and he paid the price with being alone at the end. I didn't see that in Spiderman 3. For me, that's why the movie failed as a whole. It came down to using the central piece of the plot in a wrong way.

Cause, honestly, what did the suit make him do in the movie ? Dance, slap MJ once, be more aggressive.

In Spectacular however, the list is:

Steal the suit.
Lie to his only supporter, Gwen's father.
Fall in with mobsters and ask them for a job.
Become the primary reason for the creation of Venom since Eddie was a pretty awesome guy.
Crush his friends emotionally and hurt them, to the point where Flash Thompson of all people was the only one that managed to make him come around.
Be not just aggressive but fine with the suit using his body while he was asleep.
His aunt being in the hospital with a heart attack and him hearing about it 1 day after, making him an extremely inconsiderate nephew.

So yeah, Bob is wrong about SM 3. I don't care how it says ASM 2 "broke him" because there is no way that movie is worse than SM 3. No way in hell.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
JimB said:
uanime5 said:
That scene in Spider-Man 3 where Peter tried to be cool does make more sense if Peter has no idea how to act cool. Though it needed a voice over explaining why Peter started acting this way.
Not sure how fair that is. After all, we had two and a half movies up to that point to establish that Peter is just not cool. It's kind of on us if we haven't figured it out by now.
This is ridiculous. We thought Peter looked silly because it was a dance scene in an action movie (something that doesn't happen pretty much ever because it's too jarring a change unless the whole movie is built in that vein like Kung Fu Hustle). But look at the actual scene, he's agile and cool. People are impressed and are clapping. This argument completely fails at the point where it claims that the whole thing is supposed to be dorky.

<youtube=U883K-W77ZY>

Seriously, he slips the hostess money (successfully) like a big man to get them a seat in a popular place, he plays piano like a pro, has a band backing him up, performs impressive acrobatics and the whole bar is going crazy for it. Cheering and clapping the entire time. He even woos the woman until she realizes that the whole thing it just to hurt Mary Jane Watson.

Whoever made this, wanted him to look cool doing it. I'm sorry but the whole "he doesn't understand how to be cool" doesn't work with that dance scene. He is being cool according to whoever is making it but it just didn't translate that way to the movie audience. The bar audience clearly thought it was great.

Now, contrast that with the scene leading up to it where he's walking down the sidewalk trying to act cool in his standard blue windbreaker, jeans and a button up shirt. He's trying and failing to be cool there:

<youtube=UcgBeSNavzw>

But then he dons the black to transition us to the next scene.

But surely everyone can tell the difference between those two scenes. Just pay attention to the people surrounding him and it's obvious whether or not they think he's being "cool".

Remember that these two videos coincide with the dorky one preceding the dance scene. This is actually meant to serve as a dichotomy between standard blues spidey (original dorky) and black venom spidey (new dark and mysterious). He isn't cool while wearing his blues with people laughing at him and then has a cool scene once he changes clothes into the black clothing. The artistic notion being that he switches over to being more his venom dark self than his original dorky self. Not that he's still dorky the whole time. This was Peter being cool like he's always wanted but at the cost of becoming a jerk. There's no pseudo-cool intended here. Bob completely missed it. It's symbolism that is so blatant it's slapping us in the face. It's well done symbolism in the wrong place.

So no, the dance scene wasn't ironic. It was really supposed to be cool. It is exactly what we thought it was.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lightknight said:
This is ridiculous. We thought Peter looked silly because it was a dance scene in an action movie (something that doesn't happen pretty much ever because it's too jarring a change unless the whole movie is built in that vein like Kung Fu Hustle).
Who's "we?"

Lightknight said:
Seriously, he slips the hostess money (successfully) like a big man to get them a seat in a popular place, he plays piano like a pro, has a band backing him up, performs impressive acrobatics and the whole bar is going crazy for it.
Douchebags can't slip a waitress money? A clown doing acrobatics is cool instead of just a dorky piece of entertainment like a magician or a street performer? Fooling Gwen Stacy into thinking he's a nice guy for less than the duration of one full date makes him cool? And you don't think that just walking up to a piano and making yourself the center of attention is a conception of cool held by children and other people who don't know what cool is?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
JimB said:
Lightknight said:
This is ridiculous. We thought Peter looked silly because it was a dance scene in an action movie (something that doesn't happen pretty much ever because it's too jarring a change unless the whole movie is built in that vein like Kung Fu Hustle).
Who's "we?"
Most of the people. If you read the title of the video/thread, "You are wrong about Spider-Man 3" you can guess by context that the "You" of the title is the "We" I'm referring to. If you waltz over to rotten tomatoes you'll also see a terribly recieved film.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/#contentReviews

Sometimes you're not in the majority. Sometimes I'm not in the majority. If you think the movie was good then this is your time.

Douchebags can't slip a waitress money? A clown doing acrobatics is cool instead of just a dorky piece of entertainment like a magician or a street performer? Fooling Gwen Stacy into thinking he's a nice guy for less than the duration of one full date makes him cool? And you don't think that just walking up to a piano and making yourself the center of attention is a conception of cool held by children and other people who don't know what cool is?
Sure, Peter was being a douchebag. Guys that are slick that way are often considered assholes anyways. But not dorky. Such was the point of the interaction. But what he wasn't being was bumbling and dorky to the audience. There's a clear contrast in response between the people on the sidewalk when Peter in blue clothing is being awkward and the response given from the people in that restaurant to Peter in black.

I personally find his performance really poorly choreographed. With the individual dance scene being little more than him raising his arms. Had they done some actually impressive moves then we as an audience may have received it differently (maybe still not), but it's clear that the on bar audience was impressed and the girl was wooed until she realized, like you said, that he was just being a douchebag.

Look at that video of the dance. Look at the atmosphere. Do you think the on-film audience is thinking that he's being a dork?

My complaint is that the intention wasn't what Bob thinks it was. That he was actually being a dork in this scene. The intention was a contrast between his regular self. Venom = Cool at the cost of being a jerk. Peter = Dork with the benefit of being a nice guy. It isn't even subtle. They perform a costume change right there. It's a blatant contrast in every way and Bob thinks it's something else. But he's also regularly soft on movies that are on the topic of things we (nerds) care about. So at least he's consistent in a way I can rely on.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lightknight said:
JimB said:
Who's "we?"
Most of the people. If you read the title of the video/thread, "You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3," you can guess by context that the "You" of the title is the "We" I'm referring to.
I know the title of the episode. I wanted to see if you were trying to claim some sort of invisible majority support to bolster your case, because it felt like you were. It still kind of does.

Ultratwinkie said:
Look at that video of the dance. Look at the atmosphere. Do you think the on-film audience is thinking that he's being a dork?
I wouldn't go so far as dork, but it isn't a binary either/or choice. There's a sliding scale of cool, and I don't see any reason to think the clubgoers believe Peter is cool rather than amusing. I mean, shit, if applause at your antics is all it takes to be cool, then Rob Schneider is the Fonz.
 

smartalec

New member
Sep 12, 2008
54
0
0
JimB said:
You're right about Thor, though. I have no fucking idea how he figured out what was going on or where he needed to be. Hulk I'll excuse, since Banner landed in New York; he just needed to look up at the hole in the sky and keep going. Thor, though...I got nothing.
Banner got a look at the results of the scan for the Tesseract before things went to hell in a handbasket on the helicarrier. He didn't have time to tell anyone else, but I took it that this was how he knew to go to New York on that ol' motorboke.

Thor can fly, so he can arrive pretty quickly if he needs to.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
smartalec said:
Thor can fly, so he can arrive pretty quickly if he needs to.
Yeah, but his ability to fly is only relevant if he landed within sight of where the hole in the sky opens, which I just don't believe happened. He landed on a rocky beach next to a florid field with no visible signs of human development. I just don't believe that's within line of sight of downtown New York. I mean, he wasn't there when Stark and Cap figured out where Loki was gonna set up, so it's not like he knew where he had to go.
 

theNater

New member
Feb 11, 2011
227
0
0
JimB said:
Yeah, but his ability to fly is only relevant if he landed within sight of where the hole in the sky opens, which I just don't believe happened. He landed on a rocky beach next to a florid field with no visible signs of human development. I just don't believe that's within line of sight of downtown New York. I mean, he wasn't there when Stark and Cap figured out where Loki was gonna set up, so it's not like he knew where he had to go.
He could have plausibly been in Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. Human development is actively kept away from it(cause, y'know, wildlife refuge) and it's Brooklyn-adjacent.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
I would agree that people seriously overstate this films problems; it's nowhere near as great as 1 and 2, but it's still a good film overall, I'd say. While Spiderman 3's primary issue is a structural one, it's substance is still, for the most part, top notch.

Example: Harry finding out that his dad took his own life and sacrificing himself to save Peter; this makes no fucking sense. Harry should have found this out easily or his butler should have told him, (What the hell, man?) but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't genuinely tragic to see Harry and Peter as best friends for the first time since movie 1, only for Harry to be the person who ultimately pays the price for Peters mistakes. This story arc could have been fantastic if it was just cleaned up a little bit, and that describes the film as a whole; lots of good ideas getting in each others way.

I'll say this, if Spiderman 3 is endearingly flawed, The Amazing Spiderman is painfully average. It could be argued that there is less technically wrong with The Amazing Spiderman, but I cannot imagine anyone would compare it's heart or ambition to ANY of the original trilogy.

The Amazing Spiderman does nothing but go through the motions in an acceptable fashion, which would be less annoying if it wasn't so fucking unnecessary; there is nothing about it that the original trilogy didn't do at least mildly better, or at most MUCH better.

So yeah, I'll take Spiderman 3's messy, scatterbrained attempt at a story with real humanity over Amazing's clean, manufactured drivel any day.

Better yet, I'll just rewatch Spiderman 1 and 2; they're not that fucking old.
 

MrJoyless

New member
May 26, 2010
259
0
0
piscian said:
I went back and reread or wiki'd the whole venom backstory and maximum carnage nonsense. It's all garbage it really is. Venom as a concept is neat but no writer to this date has been able to add any depth to venom or eddie brock. YOu will never see a section of marvel knights or selfcontained Graphic novel about venom. There's just nothing to say.
Wait...what???

Venom is the ultimate jilted lover, Eddie/Venom HATE Spiderman to the point where Eddie/Venom almost ends up sacrificing his (ex?)wife so he can try and kill Spiderman. I love characters whose motivation is utter savage uncompromising revenge, and man does Venom want their revenge.

THAT is why maximum carnage is so great. Venom conquers their rage and hatred of Spiderman, to the point where Venom actually thanks Spiderman for saving someone they cared about. Venom actually matures as a chaotic good type of character in maximum carnage, to the point where he actually teams up with the marvel version of a "religious" do good pair(cloak and dagger).

It is tragic that no one has pushed venom further as a character, he has depth once you get past all the die Spiderman die kill Spiderman kill that was the early part of his bio.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
I disagree with him taking Spider Man 3 over The Dark Knight Rises, but yeah, it really wasn't a disaster. It wasn't good, but it wasn't a disaster.